Zevachim 80b (פ:) — the Talmud in English

Furthermore:

another refutation, and this is against Rav Ashi, who said that the reason for Rabbi Eliezer's ruling is that he must return and apply the blood above because he holds that there is no mingling, from the following:

It was taught in a baraita: With regard to blood designated for placement above that became mixed with blood designated for placement below, Rabbi Eliezer says: He shall place

all of it

above, and I regard

the

blood designated for placement below as though it were water,

and he has fulfilled his obligation of placing the blood designated for placement above.

And

if the

blood designated for placement below would count for him

when he places it below, then the blood designated for placement above would count for him as the pouring of the remnants, and the blood designated for placement below would count for him toward fulfilling the primary mitzva of its placement.

And if you say

that Rabbi Eliezer

holds that there is no mingling, why would it count for him?

But

perhaps he is giving the blood designated for placement above below,

and he has not fulfilled his obligation of placing the sin-offering blood above, and

the blood designated for placement below above,

and he has not fulfilled the placement of the burnt-offering blood below!?

And we answer:

What are we dealing with here? With a case where there is a majority of blood designated for placement above, and he gives above

the entire

measure

of the blood designated for placement below,

and furthermore

he adds more to it, so that it is certain to us that he has placed some of the blood designated for placement above above.

The Gemara challenges this: If he placed the entire measure of the blood designated for placement below above, and Rabbi Eliezer holds that there is no mingling, it is possible that all the blood designated for placement below was placed above, and he has not fulfilled his obligation of placing the burnt-offering blood [which is below]; so this is difficult:

Does it not teach, “the blood designated for placement below counted for him,”

which indicates that it is also certain to us that he fulfilled his obligation of placing the burnt-offering blood below!?

And we answer: The statement that “the blood designated for placement below counted for him” does not mean that it is certain to us that he fulfilled his obligation of placing the burnt-offering blood below. Rather, he fulfilled the placement

as the remnants.

For that blood which was placed below, if it is not the burnt-offering blood, is the remnant of the sin-offering blood that remained from the blood placed above.

Come and hear: If he placed below

the mixed blood

and did not seek counsel

[whether to place it above first or below [for if he had sought counsel, we would have instructed him to place it above first according to Rabbi Eliezer, whereas according to the Rabbis we would have instructed him to pour it into the channel]—

Rabbi Eliezer says: He shall return and place it above

from the blood that remains, and he will fulfill the obligation of both, since

the blood designated for placement below counted for him

with the placement that he performed first, and the blood designated for placement above with the placement that he subsequently performed above [whereas according to the Rabbis, he shall now pour it into the channel].

If so, this is difficult for Rav Ashi, who said that there is no mingling: From where do we know that it counted for him? Perhaps he placed the blood designated for placement above below and the blood designated for placement below above?

And we answer:

Here too,

it is speaking

of a majority of blood designated for placement above, and he gives above a measure of the blood designated for placement below and more,

so that it is certain to us that he placed some of the blood designated for placement above above.

The Gemara challenges this:

Does it not teach, “the blood designated for placement below counted for him,”

and if there is no mingling, from where do we know that the blood designated for placement below counted for him?

And we answer: The statement that “the blood designated for placement below counted for him” means

as the remnants,

as we answered above.

The Gemara raises another difficulty against Rav Ashi:

Come and hear: If he placed

the mixed blood

above and did not seek counsel

[for according to the Rabbis, he should pour it into the channel],

both,

both the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer,

agree that he shall return and place it below.

For it is permitted to place the blood designated for placement above below as the pouring of the remnants. The only reason the Rabbis prohibit placing it above initially is that they hold that it is prohibited to alter the placement of the burnt-offering blood and place it above. But once he did not seek counsel and placed it above, it is now preferable that he place it below, thereby fulfilling the mitzva of placing the burnt-offering blood below. And as stated, there is no prohibition in placing the sin-offering blood below, since he is placing it as the pouring of the remnants, which is initially performed below.

And both

agree that

it counted for him,

the placements of the blood, to fulfill his obligation.

This is difficult for Rav Ashi, who said that Rabbi Eliezer holds that there is no mingling. For if there is no mingling, it is possible that it did not count for him, as perhaps he placed the blood designated for placement above below and the blood designated for placement below above?

And we answer:

Here too,

it is speaking

of a majority of blood designated for placement above, and he gives above a measure of the blood designated for placement below and more,

in which case it is certain that he fulfilled the obligation of placing the blood designated for placement above above.

The Gemara challenges this:

But “both counted for him”

both count for him,”

does it not teach,

demonstrating that the blood designated for placement below also counted for him!?

And we answer:

Does it teach

in the latter clause,

“both agree”

that both counted for him, both through the placement of the blood designated for placement above and through the placement of the blood designated for placement below? But

it teaches, “both counted,”

and this does not refer to everyone; rather,

the latter clause,

which teaches, “both counted for him,”

we arrive

only

at the Rabbis, who say, “there is mingling.”

Come and hear: With regard to blood whose placement is performed with one application,

such as the blood of a firstborn animal,

that became mixed with blood whose placement is performed with one application,

such as the blood of a tithe animal,

they shall be placed with one application.

And if you say that there is no mingling, why should they be placed with one application

[if he does not pour out all the blood], when there is reason for concern

that perhaps he is giving from this one, but he is not giving from that one?

And we answer: What are we dealing with here?

With a case

where blood in the measure of one application

of

a firstborn became mixed with blood

in the

measure of one application

of

a tithe animal, and he gives two applications, one application for each of the two bloods.

And likewise, regarding that which the Mishna teaches: Blood that is

subject to four applications

became mixed with blood that is

subject to four applications,

and Rabbi Eliezer says that they shall be given with four applications,

here too

it is speaking

of a case where

blood in the measure of four

applications

became mixed with other blood

in the

measure of four

applications.

And Rabbi Eliezer says that he shall give a measure of four applications from this blood, and then return and give a measure of four applications from this blood, because there is no mingling.

And furthermore, we consider: Regarding that which the Mishna teaches, “Blood whose placement is

with four applications

became mixed with blood whose placement is

with one application,”

and Rabbi Eliezer says that they shall be given with four applications, and I regard the additional blood of the firstborn as though it were water, this is difficult for Rav Ashi: For if Rabbi Eliezer holds that there is no mingling, one should be concerned that perhaps he did not give any of one of the two at all?