Zevachim 80a (פ.) — the Talmud in English

e. The blood of those whose blood is

given in one placement—

such as a firstborn offering,

that became mixed with blood given in one placement,

such as the blood of a tithe offering—whether the bloods became mixed in a single cup, or whether there were two cups that became mixed,

they shall be given in one placement.

The Gemara initially assumed that the tanna holds: “There is blending,” meaning that when two liquids become mixed with one another, they are thoroughly blended, so that every drop contains some of each of the two mixed substances. Therefore, in one placement of the mixed blood there is both blood of the firstborn offering and blood of the tithe offering. And if two cups became mixed, he shall give one placement from each cup separately.

v. And if the bloods of those whose blood requires

four placements became mixed with blood requiring four placements,

such as the blood of an olah that became mixed with the blood of a shelamim,

they shall be given in four placements.

vii. And if blood requiring

four placements became mixed with blood given

in

one placement—

Rabbi Eliezer says: They shall be given in four placements.

He does not violate the prohibition of adding through the giving of blood whose law is that it be given in one placement, because we regard it as mere water, since he is not giving it in order to fulfill the requirement of four placements with it, but because he cannot separate it from the other blood mixed with it, whose placements are four.

Rabbi Yehoshua says: They shall be given in one placement

alone, because he does not hold the principle “we regard.” If he gives four placements, he violates the prohibition of adding with regard to the giving of the firstborn’s blood. Yet he fulfills his obligation through giving one placement, since, with regard to all those whose blood is given on the outer altar, if one gave it in only one placement, he atoned.

Rabbi Eliezer said

to Rabbi Yehoshua: How can he give only one placement? Even if he fulfills his obligation, he has omitted the mitzva of giving four placements; if so,

does he not violate the prohibition of detracting?!

Rabbi Yehoshua said

to Rabbi Eliezer: According to your view, how can he give four placements?

Does he not violate the prohibition of adding

by giving four placements from the blood of the firstborn offering?!

Rabbi Eliezer said to him: The prohibition of adding was stated

with regard to giving four placements in place of one placement

only when it is

by

itself,

but not when it is mixed, and he is fulfilling a mitzva with the other blood.

Rabbi Yehoshua said

to Rabbi Eliezer:

The prohibition of detracting was stated only when it is by itself,

but not when it is mixed, and he does not give from it because of the prohibition against giving the other blood.

Rabbi Yehoshua further said

to explain why it is preferable to refrain from giving four placements:

When you gave

four placements,

you violated the prohibition of adding

through giving the blood of the firstborn offering,

and you performed an action with your hands.

But

when you did not give,

and refrained from fulfilling the mitzva of giving four placements with the blood of the olah, you

violated

indeed

the prohibition of detracting,

but

you did not perform an action with your hands.

Therefore, refraining from action is preferable.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: If the blood of unblemished offerings became mixed with the blood of blemished offerings, it shall be poured into the drainage channel. Rabbi Eliezer says: If one cup was offered, all the cups may be offered.

Rabbi Elazar said: Rabbi Eliezer did not permit

the remaining cups to be offered when one cup had been offered

unless

he gives them

two by two,

that is, he sprinkles from two cups simultaneously. For then, in addition to the possibility that the first cup already offered was the cup containing the blood of the blemished offerings, there is an additional basis for permitting it: Since he sprinkles from two cups simultaneously, it is possible to say that since one of the two cups is certainly permitted, the other is also permitted.

But

offering the two cups separately,

one by one, is not

permitted.

Rav Dimi raised an objection:

Yet we learned in our Mishna:

And the Sages say: Even if

all

the cups were offered except for one of them, it shall be poured into the drainage channel.

But according to Rabbi Elazar, Rabbi Eliezer also agrees that one cup may not be offered; only two cups may be offered?!

Rabbi Yaakov said to Rabbi Yirmeya: Bar Taḥlifa! [

He called him this by his father’s name, as his father was named Taḥlifa.]

I will explain it to you: What

does “even if one”

remained mean?

One pair

of cups

remained,

and in all cases, if only one cup remained, Rabbi Eliezer concedes to the Sages that it may not be offered.

The Gemara now explains why it was necessary to state the dispute between the Sages and Rabbi Eliezer both with regard to the limbs of blemished offerings that became mixed with the limbs of unblemished offerings and with regard to the blood of blemished offerings that became mixed with the blood of unblemished offerings.

It was necessary

to state both cases:

For if it were stated

that their dispute applies only

in this case,

with regard to the limbs of blemished offerings that became mixed with the limbs of unblemished offerings, I would say that only

in this case Rabbi Eliezer said

that one may be lenient and offer all of them after one of them had been offered,

because his atonement was effected through it

in a valid manner. The sprinkling of the blood, which is the sacrificial service that effects atonement, was performed in accordance with halakha; only the sacrificial burning service, which is performed after atonement, became subject to the mixture. Therefore Rabbi Eliezer was lenient in allowing one to rely on the possibility and permit the entire mixture. But

in this case,

with regard to the blood of blemished offerings that became mixed with the blood of unblemished offerings, where the principal atonement is performed in a defective manner,

say that he concedes to the Sages

that one may not be lenient.

And if it were stated in this case,

with regard to blood that became mixed, I would say that only

in this case,

where the principal atonement is performed in a defective manner,

the Sages say

that they imposed a stringency and one may not rely on the possibility. But

in this case,

with regard to limbs that became mixed after the atonement effected by the sprinkling of the blood,

say that they concede to Rabbi Eliezer

that one may rely on the possibility and be lenient in burning all of them. Therefore

it was necessary

to inform us that the Sages and Rabbi Eliezer dispute in both cases.

We learned there

in tractate Parah:

A flask

of “water of purification” [which is spring water mixed with the ashes of the red heifer, consecrated for sprinkling upon those impure through contact with the dead

into which any amount of water fell] [

that is unfit for sprinkling]—

Rabbi Eliezer says: The priest shall sprinkle

from the water in the flask upon the impure person

two sprinklings,

as the Gemara will explain, and he will become pure.

And the Sages disqualify

all the water in the flask.

And we raised a difficulty concerning this:

Granted, the Sages

disqualify the water for sprinkling because

they hold

three principles:

a.

“There is blending” [when two liquids, or flour, become mixed with one another, they are thoroughly blended], and consequently every drop of the water contains a mixture of water of purification and water that is unfit.

b.

And

the Sages further hold that

a sprinkling requires a measure,

and consequently each sprinkling lacks the required measure of water of purification because of the unfit water mixed into it.

c.

And

it is not effective for him to sprinkle and then sprinkle again, because

separate sprinklings do not combine,

as one sprinkling does not combine with another.

Rather, Rabbi Eliezer,

who says that he should perform two successive sprinklings rather than one sprinkling being sufficient,

what does he hold?

If he holds that there is no blending,

and it is possible that one of the two sprinklings contained no water of purification at all, only water,

when he performs two sprinklings, what has he accomplished

as proof that one of the two sprinklings that he performed contained water of purification? Since there is no blending, we must be concerned

that perhaps both

sprinklings

were merely water?!

Perhaps neither contained any water of purification at all, but only water.

Rather,

necessarily,

he holds

Rabbi Eliezer

that there is blending,

and he is not concerned that he might perform a sprinkling consisting only of water.

And if

Rabbi Eliezer

holds that a sprinkling does not require a measure, why do I need two sprinklings?

In the first sprinkling he has already sprinkled some amount of water of purification?!

Rather, he holds

Rabbi Eliezer

that a sprinkling requires a measure,

and therefore he is concerned that the first sprinkling contained water mixed in such a quantity that the water of purification in that sprinkling did not amount to the required measure of a sprinkling. Therefore, he should sprinkle again.

And if he holds that separate sprinklings do not combine,

as one sprinkling does not combine with another,

when he performs two sprinklings, what has he accomplished?!

They do not combine to form the required measure of a sprinkling.

Alternatively,

even if we say that

separate sprinklings do combine,

so that two sprinklings combine to complete the required measure of a sprinkling, it is still difficult:

Who can say that

in the additional sprinkling he

will complete the required measure?

The Gemara presents three answers, given by three amoraim:

a.

Reish Lakish said: Actually,

Rabbi Eliezer holds

that there is blending, and that a sprinkling requires a measure.

As for our difficulty—how do we know that the second sprinkling will complete the required measure—the answer is:

What are we dealing with here? For example, water that is unfit

became mixed in the amount required for

one

sprinkling

in

the measure of

one

sprinkling of water of purification [or more water of purification]. Therefore, if he performs two sprinklings, and the water of purification in the first combines with that in the second, certainly the combined amount of the two sprinklings will equal the required measure of a sprinkling, since the mixture contained unfit water only in the amount of one sprinkling.

b.

Rava said: Actually, there is blending, a sprinkling does not require a measure, and

the reason they required him to perform two sprinklings

is a penalty that the Sages imposed,

so that he would not benefit from the surplus of water of purification by virtue of its having become mixed with unfit water,

so that he would not gain from it,

and would not profit from this spill by gaining the surplus water of purification.

c.

Rav Ashi said:

Rabbi Eliezer actually holds that a sprinkling does not require a measure, and the case is one of a flask of water of purification into which any amount of water fell. And Rabbi Eliezer holds

that there is no blending.

Therefore, we are concerned that in the first sprinkling [which is any amount, since a sprinkling does not require a measure] he sprinkled water and not water of purification. Therefore,

he shall perform two sprinklings,

and now we certainly know that one of them is water of purification, since only any amount of a sprinkling is required, and there was only any amount of water in the mixture.

A challenge was raised

against the answer of Reish Lakish, from what we learned:

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: According to the statement of Rabbi Eliezer,

who validates the water through two sprinklings,

a sprinkling of any amount purifies,

because

a sprinkling does not require a measure. And a sprinkling

that is

half valid and half invalid

is also valid; that is, a sprinkling half of which consists of valid water and half of which consists of invalid water is likewise a valid sprinkling.

This is not a difficulty for Rava or Rav Ashi, because Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi stated the fundamental law according to Rabbi Eliezer. The reason one must sprinkle again is, according to Rava, because of a penalty, and according to Rav Ashi, because there is no blending. But according to Reish Lakish, who said that the reason is that the two sprinklings must combine to form one required measure of a sprinkling, it is difficult: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi explicitly stated that according to Rabbi Eliezer a sprinkling does not require a measure!