Zevachim 81a — the Talmud in English

And if you say, here too

it deals

with four having become mixed with one,

for the measure of one presentation from the blood of the firstborn became mixed with the measure of four presentations from the blood of the burnt-offering, and when Rabbi Eliezer said, “They shall be given with the presentation of four,” his intention is that all the blood, composed of five presentations, shall be given with the presentation of four; thus, although there is no mixing, there are certainly four presentations here from the blood of the burnt-offering and the firstborn.

If so,

since you have established it as a certain presentation of four presentations from the burnt-offering, this is difficult: why

did Rabbi Joshua say to Rabbi Eliezer,

to Rabbi Eliezer,

“Behold, he transgresses [the prohibition of] adding”?

But

here, from where is “[the prohibition of] adding”?!

for he did not add anything!?

Rather, Rabba said:

there is no need to state all those resolutions that we answered above according to Rav Ashi, who established that Rabbi Eliezer holds that there is no mixing, and that it deals with his giving the exact measure of the blood of the presentations. Rather, it deals with there being a great deal of blood, and nevertheless you will not prove that there is mixing contrary to the words of Rav Ashi.

For

the

the blood

being mixed, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua do not disagree.

Rabbi Eliezer too holds that if the blood of a firstborn became mixed with the blood of a burnt-offering, it is not effective for him, for perhaps he gives from this one and does not give from that one, and it is possible that he has not fulfilled his obligation with the burnt-offering or with the firstborn.

Rather,

when do they disagree?

When the bloods became mixed

in cups

that were separate.

Rabbi Eliezer holds the principle “we regard,”

therefore it does not matter to him that he gives four presentations from each cup, for the additional blood that he gives from the firstborn, I regard it as though he were giving water. And likewise, upper blood that became mixed with lower blood, he may give from all the cups, both above and below, for I regard the additional presentation as the giving of water.

Whereas

according to the Sages,

who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer in our Mishna and say that those given above which became mixed with those given below shall be poured into the channel,

they do not hold the principle “we regard.”

Therefore it is forbidden to alter [the designated place] and give the upper blood below or the lower blood above.

And we raise an objection: Is it so that

with mixed [blood] they do not disagree?

But it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Judah said: Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages did not disagree concerning the blood of a sin-offering that became mixed with the blood of a burnt-offering, that it should be offered

for Rabbi Judah disagrees with the tanna of the Mishna, and holds that the Sages too concede to Rabbi Eliezer that we say “we regard” the additional blood in the mixture as though it were water.

And likewise they did not disagree

concerning an animal that had intercourse and an animal that was the object of intercourse

whose blood became mixed with the blood of fit [offerings],

that it should not be offered,

because of the forbidden blood mixed [with it].

Concerning what did they disagree? —

Concerning the blood of an unblemished [animal] that became mixed with the blood of a blemished [animal], for Rabbi Eliezer says that it should be offered,

whether the mixture of the blood was

mixed,

in one cup,

or

the mixture was

in cups, and I regard the blood of the blemished [animal] as though it were water.

And the Sages say: it should not be offered.

And Rabbi Eliezer’s reason, according to Rabbi Judah, is that he holds that this which is written, “There is a blemish in them—they shall not be acceptable for you,” applies only when they are by themselves, and not when they are present in a mixture.

And from Rabbi Judah, who established their disagreement both when mixed in one cup and when they became mixed in cups, it follows concerning the tanna of the Mishna that the disagreement of the Sages and Rabbi Eliezer is also when they are mixed!?

And we resolve:

Rabbi Judah,

who established the disagreement of the Sages and Rabbi Eliezer only concerning the blood of a blemished [animal] that became mixed with the blood of a fit [animal],

interprets

their disagreement

both when mixed and when in cups,

and Rabbi Eliezer declares it fit because he holds that the blood of a blemished [animal] mixed with other blood is not disqualified.

But the Sages,

that is, the tanna of the Mishna, who established their disagreement also concerning the blood of fit [offerings] that became mixed with one another, established their disagreement as specifically

when they are in cups they disagree.

But when mixed, Rabbi Eliezer does not disagree, because he holds that there is no mixing.

Abaye said: They taught

in our Mishna the disagreement of the Sages and Rabbi Eliezer concerning a sin-offering and a burnt-offering whose bloods became mixed with one another,

only

when the bloods of the sin-offering and the burnt-offering were

“the beginning of a sin-offering and a burnt-offering,”

for blood had not yet been given from the sin-offering and the burnt-offering upon the altar, and now it is necessary to give them initially.

But [when it is] “the end of a sin-offering and the beginning of a burnt-offering,”

if some of the blood of the sin-offering had already been given, and only the remnants of the blood of the sin-offering remained, whose law is that they are to be poured below, and those remnants became mixed with the blood of “the beginning of a burnt-offering,” from whose blood nothing had yet been given upon the altar, then

according to everyone, the place

of giving the blood of

a burnt-offering

is also

the place

of giving

the remnants

of the sin-offering. That is, there is no need to pour the blood of the sin-offering upon the base of the altar, because the blood of the remnants of the sin-offering trickles down by itself to the base, and it follows that there is no “change of place.”

Rav Yosef said to him

to Abaye:

This is what Rav Judah said: remnants

that require pouring onto the base

must

be poured upon

the platform

itself. And that is, upon the base called “itztaba,” because it is made in the form of a platform. And if so, the Sages also disagree in the case of the end of a sin-offering and the beginning of a burnt-offering, for according to them it is impossible to give the blood of the end of a sin-offering upon the wall of the altar itself, which is the place of the blood of the burnt-offering.

And likewise

we learned that Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yohanan disagreed concerning this:

Reish Lakish said

in accordance with the words of Abaye,

they taught

the disagreement of the Sages and Rabbi Eliezer in our Mishna

only concerning the beginning of a sin-offering and a burnt-offering. But concerning the end of a sin-offering and a burnt-offering, according to everyone, the place of the burnt-offering

is

the place of the remnants,

and they do not disagree.

Whereas

Rabbi Yohanan—and some say Rabbi Elazar—said: it is still a disagreement

also in the case of the end of a sin-offering and the beginning of a burnt-offering.

Rav Huna bar Judah raised an objection:

it is stated concerning a firstborn

“They are holy,”

and the verse comes to teach us that the bloods of a firstborn shall remain in their state,

So

even

if

the blood of the firstborn

with the blood of other sacrificial animals,

the blood of the firstborn has not lost its name, and therefore

the bloods shall be offered

the bloods.

And according to the Sages, this law applies when the blood of the firstborn became mixed with the blood of a burnt-offering, for both of them can be offered together below.

And we infer:

Is it not

the novelty of the beraita that even the bloods of

the end of a burnt-offering,

that is, the blood that remained after the presentation of four [presentations] from the blood of the burnt-offering,

and

and the blood of the beginning of

a firstborn,

the blood of the beginning of the firstborn does not lose its name.

And infer from this that the place of the burnt-offering

is

the place of the remnants,

and therefore he may give the blood of the mixture upon the wall of the altar below.

And we reject this:

No,

you cannot prove from here, for here it deals with a mixture of

the beginning of a burnt-offering and a firstborn. And what does it teach us

that they can be given together, seeing that this is the place of the firstborn just as it is the place of the burnt-offering?

That sacrificial bloods do not nullify one another.

Although the blood of the burnt-offering is greater in quantity, the blood of the firstborn is not nullified in it. And likewise, if the blood of the firstborn was greater in quantity, the blood of the burnt-offering is not nullified.

And we raise an objection:

This

that sacrificial bloods do not nullify one another, is

derived from “And he shall take from the blood of the bull and from the blood of the goat”

the verse written concerning sprinkling them together on the Day of Atonement,

does it not emerge?!

For the blood of the bull is greater than the blood of the goat, and nevertheless they mix them in order to give from the blood of the mixture upon the horns of the inner altar; and nevertheless we call the lesser blood of the goat “the blood of the goat,” to teach you that sacrificial bloods do not nullify one another!?

And we answer:

It is a dispute among tannaim

who disagreed concerning this matter.

There is one who derives

the law that sacrificial bloods do not nullify one another

from here, and there is one who derives it from here.

Rava raised an objection:

it is written

“The sons of Aaron shall bring the blood, and they shall throw the blood.”

But it should have written, “The sons of Aaron shall bring and they shall throw upon the altar,” and it need not mention blood at all, for what is there for him to receive and throw as a result of the slaughter if not blood,