Zevachim 75b — the Talmud in English

a.

Any amount of sprinkling

of the water of the purification

purifies.

For

“sprinkling” does not require a measure.

That is, since “there is mixing,” in any amount whatsoever of the mixed water there is valid water of purification, and its sprinkling purifies. But if sprinkling did require a measure, it would not be possible to sprinkle from this water, since perhaps the water of purification within the mixture does not contain the measure required for sprinkling.

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

half

of the water is “any amount”

valid

for sprinkling,

and half

of it is

invalid

for sprinkling. For in that sprinkling of “any amount,” invalid water was also mixed in.

And since Rabbi says that sprinkling does not require a measure, the Gemara assumed that the same is true of the placing of blood of an offering on the altar: Rabbi holds that there is no measure for the blood that is placed. If so, this is difficult: Why did Rabbi say that if one placed an offering from a cup containing blood blended from several offerings, “we see the offering; if it contains enough for this one and enough for that one, it is valid, and if not, it is invalid”? Surely there is no measure for the placing of blood!?

And we answer: Rabbi, when he said that sprinkling of any amount purifies,

stated this according to the words of Eliezer

and not according to his own opinion. And he himself disputes this, holding that sprinkling requires a measure, analogous to the placing of blood.

And if you wish, say:

It is necessary to distinguish and say:

sprinkling is one matter,

for the sprinkling of the water of purification there is no measure,

and placing

of blood

is another matter,

for it does have a measure, because the blood must be visible on the two sides of the corner of the altar. For when one places only any amount on the point of the corner, it appears as one placing on the point of the corner and not as two placings on its two sides.

We learned in the Mishna:

If

offerings, such as a burnt-offering,

were mixed with a firstborn or with a tithe

animal, they shall graze until they become blemished, and they shall be eaten as a firstborn and as a tithe.

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

Rami bar Hama said:

a.

A firstborn,

one must not treat its sanctity lightly, because we find that the Torah was stringent to conduct oneself with honor toward the sanctity of a firstborn: it is not redeemed even when it is blemished, and it is not sold in a butcher’s shop. And we find

according to Beit Shammai

an additional stringency concerning a firstborn beyond the other sacred things: even when it is blemished and in the present time,

they do not feed

its flesh

to menstruants.

Although a blemished firstborn is permitted as food to impure people, the Torah was stringent with regard to eating by a menstruant, because it is “impurity that emerges from her body.”

And it is necessary to consider:

its substitute

of a firstborn [which is not offered on the altar, but grazes until a blemish falls upon it, and then it is eaten], if a blemish fell upon it,

what

is the law concerning feeding its flesh to menstruants?

b.

A firstborn is not redeemed

even when a blemish falls upon it, because the Torah was stringent with its sanctity, that it has no redemption.

And it is necessary to consider:

its substitute

of a firstborn,

what

is the law that it be redeemed?

c.

A firstborn

in which a blemish fell, which is permitted as food—the Torah was stringent with the honor of its sanctity, so that if the priest comes to sell its flesh, it

is not weighed by the litra

because of the honor of its sanctity; rather, it is sold by estimation.

And it is necessary to consider:

its substitute

of a firstborn,

what

is the law that it be sold by weight, by the litra?

Rava said: It was taught: A firstborn and a tithe,

even

once they became blemished—

they effect substitution, and their substitutes are like them

in all their matters.

And by this all the uncertainties are resolved.

And further,

Rami bar Hama raised

the following question: If

he designated

the priest who owns the

firstborn,

once it became blemished,

for the repair of the Temple,

and the sanctity of the repair of the Temple took effect upon it, and the treasurer of the consecrated property came to sell its flesh,

what is the law: may he weigh

the flesh of the firstborn

by the litra

[a measure of weight] when the treasurer sells it to non-priests [and through the sale the sanctity of the repair of the Temple leaves the flesh of the firstborn and is transferred to the money paid by the purchasers to the consecrated property]?

And the sides of the uncertainty are:

Should we say that the treasurer of the consecrated property may sell it by weight and not by estimation, because

the profit of the consecrated property,

the profit that the consecrated property will gain through selling by weight,

is preferable

to preserving the honor of the sanctity of the firstborn [which requires not disgracing it and not selling it by weight as ordinary unconsecrated meat is sold], since selling by weight adds more profit to the consecrated property than selling by estimation?

Or perhaps the degradation of the firstborn is preferable,

for there it is different, in the sale of the flesh of offerings disqualified from consecration, whose sale profit is intended for offering an offering that will be sacred with the same sanctity as the offering that was redeemed. This is not so in the sale of the flesh of a blemished firstborn that was dedicated for the repair of the Temple, whose sale profit is intended for the repair of the Temple and not for bringing an offering sacred with the sanctity of a firstborn. Therefore, we do not treat the sanctity of the firstborn lightly for the sake of profit for the repair of the Temple.

Rabbi Yosei bar Zevida said: Come and hear

from our Mishna:

If

offerings, such as a burnt-offering,

were mixed with a firstborn and with a tithe—

they shall graze until they become blemished, and they shall be eaten as a firstborn and as a tithe.

And it may be inferred: What is the meaning of

is it not to say that it is not weighed by the litra

even though there would be 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 lightly the sanctity of the firstborn mixed with them? And it is proven that preserving the honor of the sanctity of the firstborn is preferable to the profit of the consecrated property.

And we reject this:

Rav Huna and Rabbi Hezekiah, disciples of Rabbi Jeremiah, said: Are they comparable

—designating a firstborn for the repair of the Temple and a burnt-offering that was mixed with a firstborn!?

After all,

there,

a burnt-offering that was mixed with a firstborn, there are

two sanctities

separate

and two bodies

separate; therefore, one must not treat the firstborn lightly for the sake of the consecrated property’s profit from selling the burnt-offering. But

here, two sanctities and one body,

for the sanctity of the firstborn and the sanctity of the repair of the Temple are in the same body, and it is proper to treat one sanctity in that body lightly for the sake of the profit of another sanctity in that very body.

Rabbi Yosei bar Avin raised an objection:

What is the uncertainty that Rami bar Hama is raising—whether one should treat the sanctity of the firstborn lightly because he designated it for the repair of the Temple? After all,

what if he said,

one who wishes to redeem a firstborn, saying,

“Redeem this firstborn for me,”

and remove it from its sanctity into the unconsecrated [and it would also be permitted to shear it and work with it, and its value would be much greater],

and designated it

[that is: I shall designate] its money

for the repair of the Temple,

and the consecrated property would profit from taking the firstborn into the unconsecrated,

would they listen to him at all?!

After all, one may not transgress the words of the Torah by redeeming a firstborn for the sake of profit for the repair of the Temple. If so, what entered Rami bar Hama’s mind, that because of the profit of the consecrated property it would be permitted to weigh the firstborn by the litra? And we are astonished at Rabbi Yosei bar Avin’s question: How can the law of weighing a firstborn by the litra, which is only a rabbinic stringency, be compared to one who said, “

Redeem

for me a firstborn and take it into the unconsecrated,” which is a transgression of the words of the Torah? 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 Hama’s question, resolve it as follows: The priest who dedicates the blemished firstborn for the repair of the Temple cannot at all dedicate the difference in monetary value between a firstborn sold by the litra and a firstborn not sold by the litra. For

did this person transfer,

the priest who dedicates the firstborn for the repair of the Temple,

anything but

that

which is acquired

for him

within the body of the firstborn? Since the priest himself has no possibility of selling it by the litra, that profit which would result from selling it by the litra is not acquired for him, and consequently he has no power to dedicate it for the repair of the Temple.

We learned in the Mishna:

Everything can become mixed

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

And the Gemara discusses:

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

that the tan[n]ay taught that they cannot become mixed because the difference between them is recognizable—

this

guilt-offering

is male, and this

sin-offering

is female?

But

a sin-offering and a burnt-offering also

have a recognizable difference between them, for a burnt-offering comes only from males, while a sin-offering comes only from females!?

And we answer:

There is

among sin-offerings

the ruler’s goat,

which comes from males.

And we challenge: If it is as you say, that the tan[n]ay did not teach about a sin-offering and a burnt-offering, whose difference is recognizable, because of the ruler’s sin-offering, which comes from males, then this is difficult concerning what we learned:

a sin-offering and a guilt-offering

do not become mixed because their difference is recognizable. But 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’s ram—

This,

the ruler’s goat, has no wool, but

hair. And this,

the guilt-offering’s ram, has

wool

on its body. But a burnt-offering, which comes from all types of cattle and flock animals, can become mixed when it comes from goats with the ruler’s goat, without being able to recognize them. Therefore, he did not teach that a burnt-offering and a sin-offering do not become mixed.

And further we raised a question: Surely an offering of

Passover and

an offering of

a guilt-offering also do not become mixed.

For

this,

the Passover offering, is

a yearling, and this,

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 tan[n]ay not teach them together with a guilt-offering and a sin-offering, which do not become mixed?

And we answer:

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

of which it is said “a sheep,” and an ordinary sheep is a yearling, like the Passover offering; therefore, they are not recognizable.

And if you wish, say:

Explain it this way: Even if a Passover offering is a yearling and a guilt-offering is two years old, they can become mixed and will not be recognizable. For

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

Mishna:

a.

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

the placing of the blood of a guilt-offering and of a peace-offering is the same, but they differ in the place of their slaughter: a guilt-offering is slaughtered in the north, whereas peace-offerings are slaughtered anywhere in the courtyard. They also differ in the time of their eating: a guilt-offering is eaten for one day and one night, while peace-offerings are eaten for two days and one night. They also differ in the place of their eating: a guilt-offering is eaten only within the curtains of the courtyard, whereas peace-offerings are eaten throughout the entire city. And they also differ with regard to who eats them: a guilt-offering is eaten only by male priests, while peace-offerings are eaten by every person.

Therefore, since they became mixed—

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

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

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

They said to him

the Sages to Rabbi Shimon: One does not bring

sacred things to disqualification.

And if both are offered, it follows that the peace-offering is reduced in the time of its eating, in the place of its eating, and in those who eat it, and it may thereby become leftover and come to disqualification.

Rather, both shall graze until they become blemished, and they shall be sold, and with the money of both they shall bring a guilt-offering and a peace-offering, and they shall eat them each according to its law.

b. Pieces

of

sacred meat became mixed

with pieces

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

most sacred

offerings with pieces of meat of

less sacred offerings,

or pieces of meat of offerings

eaten for one day,

such as a thanksgiving-offering,

with

pieces of meat of offerings

eaten for two days and one night—

all the mixed pieces shall be eaten

according to

the law of

the more stringent one among them,

according to everyone, for they have no other remedy.

Gemara:

A tan[n]ay taught before Rav: The Sabbatical year—

one may not purchase teruma with its money,

one who had money in his possession that had acquired the sanctity of the Sabbatical year [the sanctity took effect upon the money when it was paid for Sabbatical-year produce] may not purchase teruma with this money, because if he purchases teruma with Sabbatical-year money, the teruma thereby acquires the sanctity of the Sabbatical year, and this must not be done

because he reduces its eating

of the teruma, since he may not eat it after the time of removal.

The Sages stated

this beraita

before Rabba,

and they added to say:

This,

this beraita, is

not in accordance with Rabbi Shimon

in our Mishna.

For if it were in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, he said: One brings sacred things to disqualification.

For Rabbi Shimon said in our Mishna that when a guilt-offering and a peace-offering became mixed with one another, it is possible to slaughter both of them and eat them according to the more stringent one among them, even though this reduces the time of eating of the peace-offerings, brings them to become leftover, and brings them to disqualification.

Rabba said to them

:

Even if you say

that the beraita is according to the words of

Rabbi Shimon

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

these words

that Rabbi Shimon permitted in our Mishna, to offer the guilt-offering and the peace-offering together and eat them according to the more stringent one among them, were

after the fact

[after the fact], so that they would not graze until they became blemished, but would themselves be offered.

But

the prohibition against purchasing teruma with Sabbatical-year money, which is a law

for the outset, he did not

permit Rabbi Shimon to bring the teruma to disqualification by restricting its eating time.

And we challenge:

And

if

for the outset he does not

permit Rabbi Shimon to bring sacred things to disqualification?