Zevachim 75b (עה:) — the Talmud in English

a.

Any amount of sprinkling

of mei ḥatat

purifies.

Because

“sprinkling” does not require a measure. Therefore, since “there is mixing,” every quantity of the mixture contains valid mei ḥatat, and sprinkling it purifies. But if sprinkling required a minimum measure, it would not be possible to sprinkle from these waters, as perhaps the mei ḥatat within the mixture do not amount to the measure required for sprinkling.

b. That sprinkling of any amount of water purifies even when

half

of the water is “any amount”

and is

valid

for sprinkling,

and half

of it is

invalid

for sprinkling. For that sprinkling of “any amount” also contained invalid water.

And from Rabbi’s statement that sprinkling does not require a measure, the Gemara assumed that the same applies to the placement of the blood of an offering on the altar: Rabbi holds that there is no minimum measure for the blood that is placed. If so, this is difficult: Why did Rabbi say that if one placed a measure from a cup containing the mixed blood of several offerings, “we view the placement: If it contains enough for this offering and enough for that offering, it is valid; and if not, it is invalid”? After all, the placement of blood does not require a measure!

And we answer: When Rabbi said that sprinkling any amount purifies,

he was stating this according to the words of Eliezer

but he himself disagrees, holding that sprinkling requires a measure, just as the placement of blood does.

And if you wish, say instead:

One can distinguish and say:

Sprinkling is one matter,

as sprinkling mei ḥatat has no minimum measure,

and placement

of blood

is another matter,

as it does require a measure. This is because the blood must be visible on both sides of the horn of the altar; when only an insignificant amount is placed on the edge of the horn, it appears as a single placement on the edge of the horn, rather than as two placements on its two sides.

We learned in the Mishna:

Offerings became mixed

such as a burnt-offering

with a firstborn or with an animal tithe

—they shall graze until they develop a blemish, and they shall be eaten like a firstborn and like an animal tithe.

The Gemara now presents several uncertainties that Rami bar Ḥama raised concerning the laws of a firstborn.

Rami bar Ḥama said:

a.

A firstborn

is not treated disrespectfully despite its sanctity, because we find that the Torah was stringent concerning the honor due to the sanctity of a firstborn: It is not redeemed even when blemished, and it may not be sold in a butcher shop. And we find that

Beit Shammai

imposed an additional stringency concerning a firstborn beyond that applicable to other consecrated animals: Even when it is blemished and in the present era,

its meat may not be fed

to

menstruating women.

Although a blemished firstborn may be eaten by those who are ritually impure, the Torah was stringent with regard to a menstruating woman’s eating, because her impurity is “an impurity that emerges from her body.”

And the issue is:

What is the status of its substitute,

a firstborn’s substitute [which is not sacrificed on the altar; rather, it grazes until it develops a blemish, at which point it is eaten], if it develops a blemish?

May

its meat be fed to menstruating women?

b.

A firstborn is not redeemed

even when it develops a blemish, because the Torah was stringent concerning its sanctity, which cannot be redeemed.

And the issue is:

What is the status of its substitute,

a firstborn’s substitute—

may

it be redeemed?

c.

A firstborn

that develops a blemish and may be eaten is nevertheless treated with special respect because of its sanctity. If the priest wishes to sell its meat,

it may not be weighed by the litra

out of respect for its sanctity; rather, it is sold by estimation.

And the issue is:

What is the status of its substitute,

a firstborn’s substitute—

may

it be sold by weight, by the litra?

Rava said: It was taught in a beraita: “A firstborn and an animal tithe,

even

after they become blemished,—

their substitutes may be made, and their substitutes are like them

in every respect.”

And with this, all the issues are resolved.

Furthermore,

Rami bar Ḥama raised an issue:

If

the priest consecrated

[meaning: consecrated]

a firstborn

after it became blemished

for the Temple treasury,

so that the sanctity of the Temple treasury took effect upon it, and the treasurer of the consecrated property came to sell its meat,

may he weigh

the firstborn’s meat

by the litra

[a unit of weight] when the treasurer sells it to non-priests [and through the sale, the sanctity of the Temple treasury leaves the firstborn’s meat and is transferred to the money paid by the purchasers to the consecrated property]?

The sides of the uncertainty are:

Perhaps the treasurer of the consecrated property may sell it by weight rather than by estimation, because

the profit of the consecrated property

—the profit that the consecrated property will gain through selling it by weight—

takes precedence

over preserving the honor of the firstborn’s sanctity [which dictates that it not be treated disrespectfully or sold by weight, as ordinary non-sacred meat is sold], because selling it by weight generates greater profit for the consecrated property than selling it by estimation.

Or perhaps the degradation of the firstborn takes precedence,

as the case there—concerning the sale of the meat of disqualified consecrated animals—is different: The profit from their sale is intended to purchase an offering that will possess the same sanctity as the offering that was redeemed. This is not so in the case of selling the meat of a blemished firstborn that was consecrated for the Temple treasury: The profit from the sale is intended for the Temple treasury and not to bring an offering possessing the sanctity of a firstborn. Therefore, we do not treat the sanctity of the firstborn disrespectfully for the sake of profit for the Temple treasury.

Rabbi Yosei bar Zevida said: Come and hear

from our Mishna:

Offerings became mixed

such as a burnt-offering

with a firstborn and an animal tithe—

they shall graze until they develop a blemish, and they shall be eaten like a firstborn and like an animal tithe.

And one may infer: What,

does this not mean that it may not be weighed by the litra,

even though this would cause a loss to the consecrated property with regard to the other mixed offerings [which may be weighed by the litra], in order not to treat disrespectfully the sanctity of the firstborn mixed with them? This proves that preserving the honor of the firstborn’s sanctity takes precedence over the profit of the consecrated property.

And we reject this:

Rav Huna and Rabbi Ḥizkiya, students of Rabbi Yirmeya, said: Are the cases comparable?

Is consecrating a firstborn for the Temple treasury comparable to a burnt-offering that became mixed with a firstborn?!

After all,

there,

in the case of a burnt-offering that became mixed with a firstborn, there are

two sanctities

that are separate

and two bodies

that are separate. Therefore, the firstborn may not be treated disrespectfully for the sake of the consecrated property’s profit from selling the burnt-offering. But

here, there are two sanctities and one body:

The sanctity of the firstborn and the sanctity of the Temple treasury are present in the same body, and it is indeed permissible to treat one sanctity in that body disrespectfully for the sake of the profit of another sanctity in that very body.

Rabbi Yosei bar Avin raised an objection

: What uncertainty did Rami bar Ḥama have—whether the sanctity of the firstborn may be treated disrespectfully because it was consecrated for the Temple treasury? After all,

what if he said,

if one who wished to redeem a firstborn said,

“Redeem this firstborn for me,”

and removed it from its sanctity into the non-sacred [and it would even be permitted to shear it and work with it, and its value would be greatly increased],

and consecrated it

[that is: I shall consecrate] its monetary value

for the Temple treasury,

so that the consecrated property would profit from removing the firstborn into the non-sacred—

would we listen to him at all?!

Surely one may not violate Torah law by redeeming a firstborn for the sake of profit for the Temple treasury. If so, what could have entered Rami bar Ḥama’s mind that, because of the profit of the consecrated property, it would be permitted to weigh the firstborn by the litra? We question Rabbi Yosei bar Avin’s comparison: How can the law of weighing a firstborn by the litra—which is merely a rabbinic stringency—be compared to one who said, “

Redeem

a firstborn for me and remove it into the non-sacred,” which is a violation of Torah law? For

the Merciful One said

[Numbers 18:17]:

“You shall not redeem”

the firstborn!

Rather, Rabbi Ami said:

If you wish to resolve Rami bar Ḥama’s issue, resolve it as follows: The priest who consecrates a blemished firstborn for the Temple treasury cannot consecrate at all the difference in monetary value between a firstborn sold by the litra and a firstborn not sold by the litra. After all,

did this person transfer

—the priest who consecrated the firstborn for the Temple treasury—

anything other than

that

which is acquired

by him

in the body of the firstborn? Since the priest himself has no possibility of selling it by the litra, the profit that could be gained by selling it by the litra is not acquired by him, and consequently he has no power to consecrate it for the Temple treasury.

We learned in the Mishna:

Everything can become mixed

except for a sin-offering and a guilt-offering, because a sin-offering is female and a guilt-offering is male.

And the Gemara asks:

What is different about a sin-offering and a guilt-offering,

that the tanna taught that they cannot become mixed because their difference is recognizable,

as this one

a guilt-offering

is male, and this one

a sin-offering

is female?

But

a sin-offering and a burnt-offering also

have a recognizable difference, as a burnt-offering is brought only from males, whereas a sin-offering is brought only from females?!

And we answer:

There is

among sin-offerings

the ruler’s goat,

which comes from males.

And we challenge this: If it is as you say—that the tanna did not teach that a sin-offering and a burnt-offering cannot become mixed because the ruler’s sin-offering is brought from males—then the statement that we learned, that

a sin-offering and a guilt-offering

do not become mixed because their difference is recognizable, is also difficult. For there is

also the ruler’s sin-offering,

which resembles a guilt-offering because it comes from males?!

And we answer: There is a recognizable difference between the ruler’s goat and the guilt-offering ram:

This one,

the ruler’s goat, has no wool, but only

hair. And this one,

the guilt-offering ram, has

wool

on its body. But a burnt-offering, which may come from every type of cattle and flock animal, can become mixed when it comes from goats with the ruler’s goat, without their being distinguishable. Therefore, the tanna did not teach that a burnt-offering and a sin-offering cannot become mixed.

And furthermore, we raised the following difficulty: Behold, a

Paschal offering and a

guilt-

offering also do not become mixed.

For

this one,

the Paschal offering, is

one year old, and this one,

the guilt-offering, is

two years old,

for only then is it called a ram and fit to be a guilt-offering. Why did the tanna not teach them together with the guilt-offering and sin-offering that do not become mixed?

And we answer:

There are the nazirite’s guilt-offering and the leper’s guilt-offering,

which are called “a lamb,” and an ordinary lamb is one year old, like a Paschal offering; therefore, they are not distinguishable.

And if you wish, say instead:

Explain it this way: Even though a Paschal offering is one year old and a guilt-offering is two years old, they can become mixed and will not be distinguishable, because

there is a one-year-old that appears to be two years old, and there is a two-year-old that appears to be one year old.

Mishna:

a.

A guilt-offering that became mixed with a peace-offering,

whose blood is placed in the same manner as that of a peace-offering, but which differs from it in the place of slaughter: A guilt-offering is slaughtered in the north, whereas a peace-offering may be slaughtered anywhere in the Temple courtyard. They also differ in the period of eating: A guilt-offering is eaten for one day and the following night, while a peace-offering is eaten for two days and the intervening night. They likewise differ in the place of eating: A guilt-offering may be eaten only within the curtains of the courtyard, whereas a peace-offering may be eaten throughout the city. And they differ with regard to those who eat them: A guilt-offering may be eaten only by male priests, whereas a peace-offering may be eaten by anyone.

Therefore, once they became mixed—

Rabbi Shimon says: Both shall be slaughtered in the north, and they shall be eaten according to the more stringent of them,

by male priests, within the curtains, and only for one day and the following night.

The owner of the peace-offering fulfills his obligation, since the peace-offering was sacrificed for the sake of its owner, even though it was not known which of the offerings was the peace-offering. But the owner of the guilt-offering does not fulfill his obligation.

The Sages said to him,

to Rabbi Shimon: One may not bring

consecrated animals to a state of disqualification.

If both are sacrificed, the peace-offering’s permitted period of eating and place of eating, as well as those permitted to eat it, are all restricted; consequently, it may become notar and thereby enter a state of disqualification.

Rather, both shall graze until they develop a blemish, and they shall be sold; with the proceeds of both, one shall bring a guilt-offering and a peace-offering, and each shall be eaten according to its law.

b. Pieces

of

consecrated meat became mixed

with pieces

of other consecrated meat—for example, pieces of meat of

most sacred offerings became mixed with

pieces of meat of

lesser sanctity,

or pieces of meat of offerings

eaten for one day,

such as a thanksgiving-offering, became mixed

with

pieces of meat of offerings

eaten for two days and the intervening night—

all the mixed pieces shall be eaten

according to

the law of the

more stringent of them,

according to everyone, as there is no other remedy for them.

Gemara:

A tanna taught before Rav: “The produce of the Sabbatical Year

—one may not purchase teruma with its proceeds,”

meaning: If someone had money that had acquired the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year [the sanctity was transferred to the money when it was used to pay for Sabbatical-Year produce], he may not purchase teruma with this money. If he purchases teruma with money of the Sabbatical Year, the teruma thereby acquires the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year, and this may not be done

because he diminishes the period in which it may be eaten,

as he may not eat it after the time of removal.

The Sages said

concerning this beraita

before Rabba,

and they added:

This

beraita

is not in accordance with Rabbi Shimon

in our Mishna.

For if it were in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, he said: One may bring consecrated animals to a state of disqualification.

For Rabbi Shimon said in our Mishna that when a guilt-offering and a peace-offering become mixed with one another, it is possible to slaughter both and eat them according to the more stringent of them, even though this diminishes the period in which the peace-offering may be eaten, causing it to become notar and enter a state of disqualification.

Rabba said to them:

Even if you say

that the beraita is in accordance with

Rabbi Shimon

in our Mishna, what we learned in the beraita—that one may not purchase teruma with money of the Sabbatical Year—is still properly explained. For

this statement

—that Rabbi Shimon permitted in our Mishna sacrificing the guilt-offering and peace-offering together and eating them according to the more stringent of them—applies

after the fact

[after the fact, so that they need not graze until they develop a blemish, but may themselves be sacrificed].

But

the prohibition against purchasing teruma with money of the Sabbatical Year, which is a rule applying

ab initio, he did not

permit Rabbi Shimon to bring the teruma into a state of disqualification by restricting the period in which it may be eaten.

And we challenge this:

And

does

not permit ab initio

Rabbi Shimon bringing consecrated animals to a state of disqualification?