Zevachim 80a — the Talmud in English

e. The blood of

those given as one placement,

such as a firstborn,

which became mixed with those given as one placement,

such as a tithe-offering; if the bloods became mixed in one cup, or if there were two cups that became mixed,

they shall be given as one placement.

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

f. And if the bloods of those given

four placements with four placements,

such as the blood of an olah that became mixed with the blood of a peace-offering,

they shall be given as four placements.

g. And if bloods containing

four placements

become mixed with blood given

as one placement—

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

And he does not violate [the prohibition of] adding to the mitzvot by giving the blood whose law is one placement, because we regard it as mere water, since he does not give it in order to fulfill four placements with it, but because he cannot separate it from the other blood mixed with it, whose placements are four.

Rabbi Joshua says: They shall be given as one placement

only, because he does not hold the principle “we regard.” And if he gives four, he violates [the prohibition of] adding to the mitzvot through giving the blood of the firstborn. And he fulfills his obligation through giving one placement, since with regard to all those given on the outer altar, if one gave them with only one placement, he effected atonement.

Rabbi Eliezer said to him

to Rabbi Joshua: How does he give only one placement? For even if he fulfills his obligation, he has omitted the mitzva to give four placements; and if so,

he violates [the prohibition of] diminishing?!

Rabbi Joshua said to him

to Rabbi Eliezer: How, according to your words, does he give four placements?

He violates [the prohibition of] adding to the mitzvot

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

Rabbi Eliezer said to him: [The prohibition of] adding to the mitzvot was not stated

with regard to giving four in place of one placement

but only when it is by

itself,

by itself,

and not when it is in a mixture and he fulfills a mitzva with the other blood.

Rabbi Joshua said to him

to Rabbi Eliezer:

[The prohibition of] diminishing was stated only when it is by itself.

And not when it is in a mixture and he does not give from it because of the prohibition against giving the other blood.

And Rabbi Joshua further said

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

When you gave

four placements,

you violated [the prohibition of] adding to the mitzvot

by giving the blood of the firstborn,

and you performed an action with your hands.

But

when you did not give,

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

you violated

indeed

[the prohibition of] diminishing, but

however,

you did not perform an action with your hands.

Therefore, refraining from action is preferable.

Gemara:

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

Rabbi Elazar said: Rabbi Eliezer permitted

when one cup was offered, to offer the remaining cups

only

if he gives them

two by two

cups; that is, at one time he sprinkles from two cups together. For then, in addition to the basis for suspending judgment that the first cup already offered was the cup of the blemished offerings, there is an additional side of permissibility: since he sprinkles from two cups together, it is possible to “say”: Since one of the two cups is certainly permitted, the other one is also permitted.

But

to offer the two cups separately,

one by one, not

do we offer them.

Rav Dimi raised an objection:

For we learned in our Mishna:

And the Sages say: Even if

the cups

all of them except one of them were offered, it shall be poured into the channel.

And according to Rabbi Elazar’s words, Rabbi Eliezer also concedes that one cup is not offered, but only two cups are offered!?

Rabbi Yaakov said to Rabbi Yirmeya: Son of Tahlifa! [

he called him this after his father, who was called Tahlifa]

I shall explain it to you: What is

even if there remained

“one”?—

a pair

of cups

one,

and in any event, if only one cup remained, Rabbi Eliezer concedes to the Sages that it is not offered.

And now the Gemara explains why it was necessary to state the dispute of 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.

And it is necessary

to state both of them:

For if their dispute had been stated

their dispute only

with regard to this,

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

with regard to this did Rabbi Eliezer say

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

because his atonement was performed through it

in a valid manner: the sprinkling of the blood, which is the service that effects atonement, was performed according to its law, and only in the service of burning, which is performed after the atonement, did the mixture occur. Therefore Rabbi Eliezer was lenient in this matter, to suspend judgment and permit. But

with regard to this,

the blood of blemished offerings that became mixed with the blood of unblemished offerings, where the essential atonement will be performed in a defective manner,

say that he concedes to the Sages

that one should not be lenient.

And if it had been stated with regard to this,

the blood that became mixed, I would say that only

with regard to this,

where the essential atonement will be performed in a defective manner,

did the Sages say

that the Sages were stringent not to suspend judgment. But

with regard to this,

the limbs that became mixed after the atonement through the sprinkling of the blood,

say that they concede to Rabbi Eliezer

that it is possible to suspend judgment and be lenient to burn them all. Therefore

it is necessary

to teach us that the Sages and Rabbi Eliezer dispute with regard to both.

We learned there

in tractate Parah:

A flask

of “waters of purification” [which are living waters in which the ashes of the red heifer are mixed, consecrated for sprinkling upon those impure through contact with the dead]

into which any amount of water fell [

which is disqualified for sprinkling]—

Rabbi Eliezer says: He shall sprinkle

the priest from the water in the flask upon the impure person

two sprinklings,

and, as it proceeds to explain, he will become pure.

And the Sages deem disqualified

all the water in the flask.

And we raised a question concerning this:

Granted, the Sages

deem the water disqualified for sprinkling, because

they hold

three things:

a.

“There is blending” [

two liquids, or flour, that become mixed with one another are completely blended], and it follows that in every drop of the water, waters of purification are mixed with disqualified water.

b.

And

the Sages further hold,

sprinkling requires a measure,

and it follows that in every sprinkling there is lacking the measure of waters of purification, because of the disqualified water mixed with them.

c.

And

it will not help for him to sprinkle and then sprinkle again, because

sprinklings do not combine,

for one sprinkling does not combine with the other.

But Rabbi Eliezer,

who says that he shall sprinkle two sprinklings one after the other, and one sprinkling is insufficient,

what does he hold?

If he holds that there is no blending,

so it is possible that in one of the two sprinklings there were no waters of purification at all, but only water,

when he sprinkles two sprinklings, what is it

proof that in one of the two that he sprinkled there are waters of purification? For since there is no blending, there is concern

perhaps both

sprinklings

are water that he sprinkles?!

Perhaps in both there were no waters of purification at all, but only water was in them.

Rather,

necessarily,

he holds

Rabbi Eliezer

that there is blending,

and he is not concerned lest he happen to perform a sprinkling of water alone.

And if Rabbi Eliezer holds

Rabbi Eliezer

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

For in the first sprinkling he already sprinkled any amount of the waters of purification?!

Rather, he holds

Rabbi Eliezer

that sprinkling requires a measure,

and therefore he is concerned lest in the first sprinkling water was mixed in such an amount that the waters of purification in the sprinkling did not amount to the measure of a sprinkling; therefore, he shall sprinkle again.

And if he holds that sprinklings do not combine,

for one sprinkling does not combine with the other,

when he sprinkles two sprinklings, what is accomplished!?

For they do not combine to form the measure of a sprinkling.

And even if

we say

that sprinklings combine,

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

who says that

in the additional sprinkling

he completes the measure for it?

And the Gemara brings three answers of three amoraim:

a.

Reish Lakish said: In fact

Rabbi Eliezer holds

that there is blending, and sprinkling requires a measure.

And regarding what we asked—how do we know that in the second sprinkling he will complete the measure—one can say:

With what are we dealing here? For example, disqualified water became mixed

in the measure of one sprinkling

one

only,

with

the measure of a sprinkling

one

of the waters of purification [or with more waters of purification]. Therefore, if he sprinkles two sprinklings, and the waters of purification in the first combine with those in the second, certainly the combination of both of them will contain the measure of a sprinkling, for there was in them disqualified water only in the measure of one sprinkling.

b.

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

what they required him to perform two sprinklings

is a penalty that the Sages imposed,

so that he should not benefit from the abundance of the waters of purification by virtue of disqualified water having become mixed with them,

so that he should not profit from this loss,

so that he should not gain through this falling-in of water the abundance of the waters of purification.

c.

Rav Ashi said:

in fact, Rabbi Eliezer holds that sprinkling does not require a measure, and we are dealing with a flask of waters of purification into which any amount of water fell, and Rabbi Eliezer holds

that there is no blending;

therefore, we are concerned lest in the first sprinkling [which is any amount, since sprinkling does not require a measure] he sprinkled from the water and not from the waters of purification, and therefore

he shall sprinkle two sprinklings,

and now it is certain to us that one of them is waters of purification, since we require a sprinkling of any amount, and there was only any amount of water in the mixture.

An objection was raised

to Reish Lakish’s answer, from what we learned:

Rabbi says: According to the words of Rabbi Eliezer,

who deems it valid through two sprinklings,

a sprinkling of any amount effects purification,

because

sprinkling does not require a measure. And a sprinkling

that is

half valid and half disqualified

that is, a sprinkling whose one half is valid water and whose one half is disqualified water is also a valid sprinkling.

For Rava and Rav Ashi this is not a difficulty, because Rabbi stated the essential law according to Rabbi Eliezer; and the reason that one must return and sprinkle again is, according to Rava, because of a penalty, while according to Rav Ashi one must return and sprinkle again because there is no blending. But according to Reish Lakish, who said that it is because one must combine the two sprinklings into one measure of a sprinkling, it is difficult, for Rabbi explicitly said that according to Rabbi Eliezer sprinkling does not require a measure!