Zevachim 81a (פא.) — the Talmud in English

And if you say that here too

it is speaking

of a case where four measures became mixed with one,

where the measure of one application of the firstborn’s blood became mixed with the measure of four applications of the burnt offering’s blood, and when Rabbi Eliezer said, “They shall be applied with four applications,” he meant that all the blood, consisting of five measures, should be applied with four applications. Thus, although there is no blending, there are certainly four applications from the blood of the burnt offering and of the firstborn.

If so,

since you have established that there is certainly a measure of four applications from the burnt offering, the difficulty is: why

did Rabbi Yehoshua say to Rabbi Eliezer

,

“He is transgressing the prohibition against adding”?

But

here, “the prohibition against adding”—from where does it arise?!

After all, he has not added anything!?

Rather, Rabba said:

There is no need to offer all those answers that we gave above according to Rav Ashi, who established that Rabbi Eliezer holds that there is no blending, and that the case involves applying the precise measure of blood required for the applications. Rather, the case involves a great deal of blood, and nevertheless it cannot prove that there is blending, contrary to Rav Ashi’s position.

For

in

blood

that is blended, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua do not disagree. Rabbi Eliezer too maintains that if the blood of a firstborn became mixed with the blood of a burnt offering, the blood does not render the offering fit, because perhaps he is applying from this blood and not from that blood, and it is possible that he has not fulfilled his obligation with regard to either the burnt offering or the firstborn.

. Rabbi Eliezer too holds that if the blood of a firstborn offering became mixed with the blood of a burnt offering, the mixture does not fulfill the obligation, because perhaps one is giving from this blood and not from that blood, and it is possible that one has not fulfilled the obligation either with the burnt offering or with the firstborn offering.

Rather,

when do they disagree?

When the bloods became mixed

in separate cups

.

Rabbi Eliezer holds that we view

the matter in a certain way. Therefore, he is not concerned that he applies four applications from each cup, because I view the additional blood that he applies from the firstborn as though he were applying water. Likewise, when upper blood became mixed with lower blood, he may apply from all the cups both above and below, because I view the additional application as the application of water.

Whereas

the Rabbis,

who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer in our Mishna and say that blood whose application is above, which became mixed with blood whose application is below, must be poured into the channel,

do not hold that we view

the matter in this way. Therefore, it is prohibited to alter the prescribed procedure and apply the upper blood below or the lower blood above.

And we raise an objection: Is it true that

with blended blood they do not disagree?

But it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda said: Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis did not disagree with regard to the blood of a sin offering that became mixed with the blood of a burnt offering, that it may be sacrificed

[for Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with the tanna of our Mishna and maintains that the Rabbis also agree with Rabbi Eliezer that we view the additional blood in the mixture as though it were water].

And likewise, they did not disagree

with regard to an animal designated for bestiality and an animal that had been used for bestiality

whose blood became mixed with the blood of fit offerings,

that it may not be sacrificed,

because of the forbidden blood mixed with it.

With regard to what did they disagree? —

With regard to the blood of an unblemished animal that became mixed with the blood of a blemished animal, as Rabbi Eliezer says: It may be sacrificed,

whether the mixture of blood was

blended,

in one cup,

or

whether the mixture was

in separate cups; and I view the blood of the blemished animal above as though it were water.

And the Rabbis say: It may not be sacrificed.

And according to Rabbi Yehuda, the reason for Rabbi Eliezer’s ruling is that he maintains that the verse, “A blemish is in them—they shall not be acceptable for you,” applies only when the blemish is intrinsic to them, but not when the blood is found in a mixture.

And from Rabbi Yehuda, who established that their dispute applies both when the blood is blended in one cup and when it became mixed in separate cups, can it be inferred with regard to the tanna of our Mishna that the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer also applies to blended blood!?

And we answer:

Rabbi Yehuda,

who restricted the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer to the blood of a blemished animal that became mixed with the blood of a fit animal,

establishes

their dispute

both when the blood is blended and when it is in separate cups,

and Rabbi Eliezer deems it fit because he maintains that the blood of a blemished animal mixed with other blood is not disqualified.

But the Rabbis,

that is, the tanna of our Mishna, who extended their dispute also to the blood of fit animals that became mixed with one another, establish their dispute as applying specifically

when the blood is in separate cups.

But when the blood is blended, Rabbi Eliezer does not disagree, because he maintains that there is no blending.

Abaye said: They taught

in our Mishna the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer concerning a sin offering and a burnt offering whose bloods became mixed with one another

only

when the blood of the sin offering and the burnt offering was

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

meaning that none of the blood of the sin offering or the burnt offering had yet been applied to the altar, and it was now necessary to apply it for the first time.

But “the end of the sin offering and the beginning of the burnt offering,”

if some of the sin offering’s blood had already been applied, and only the remainder of the sin offering’s blood was left, whose law is that it must be poured below, and that remainder became mixed with the blood of “the beginning of the burnt offering,” none of whose blood had yet been applied to the altar, then

according to everyone, the place

for applying the blood of the

burnt offering

is also the

place

for applying the

remainder

of the sin offering. That is, there is no need to pour the blood of the sin offering onto the base of the altar, because the blood remaining from the sin offering flows down by itself to the base, and consequently there is no “change of place” here.

Rav Yosef said to

Abaye:

This is what Rav Yehuda said: The remainder

that requires pouring onto the base

must

be poured onto the

ledge

itself. That is, it must be poured onto the base called an “ledge,” because it is constructed in the form of a ledge. If so, the Rabbis also disagree in the case of the end of the sin offering and the beginning of the burnt offering, because according to them it is impossible to apply the blood of the end of the sin offering to the wall of the altar itself, which is the place designated for the blood of the burnt offering.

And likewise

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

Reish Lakish said

in accordance with Abaye’s statement:

They taught

the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer in our Mishna

only with regard to the beginning of the sin offering and the burnt offering. But with regard to the end of the sin offering and the burnt offering, according to everyone, the place of the burnt offering

is

the place of the remainder,

and they do not disagree.

Whereas

Rabbi Yohanan, and some say Rabbi Elazar, said: The dispute still applies

also to the end of the sin offering and the beginning of the burnt offering.

Rav Huna bar Yehuda raised an objection:

It is stated with regard to the firstborn:

“They are sacred,”

and the verse comes to teach us that the blood of a firstborn retains its status as it is,

so that

even

if the blood

of the firstborn became mixed

with the blood of other sacrificial animals,

the blood of the firstborn does not lose its identity. Therefore,

the bloods may be sacrificed

.

And according to the Rabbis, this law applies when the blood of the firstborn became mixed with the blood of a burnt offering, in which case both may be sacrificed together below.

And we analyze this:

Is it not

that the novelty of the baraita is that even if the bloods of

the end of the burnt offering

became mixed—that is, the blood remaining after the four applications of the burnt offering’s blood—and

the blood of the beginning of the

the blood of the beginning of the

firstborn,

the blood of the beginning of the firstborn does not lose its identity?

And infer from it that the place of the burnt offering

is

the place of the remainder,

and therefore he may apply the mixed blood to the wall of the altar below.

And we reject this:

No,

you cannot prove it from here, because here the mixture involves

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

that they may be applied together? After all, the place designated for the firstborn is the same as the place designated for the burnt offering!?

For valid offerings do not nullify one another.

Although the blood of the burnt offering is more abundant, the blood of the firstborn is not nullified by it. And likewise, if the blood of the firstborn was more abundant, the blood of the burnt offering would not be nullified.

And we ask:

This—

the fact that valid offerings do not nullify one another—

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

[Leviticus 16], the verse concerning their joint sprinkling on Yom Kippur;

is it not derived from there!?

For the bull’s blood is more abundant than the goat’s blood, and nevertheless they mix them in order to apply some of the mixture to the horns of the Inner Altar. Yet we still refer to the smaller quantity of the goat’s blood as “the blood of the goat,” teaching that valid offerings do not nullify one another!?

And we answer:

It is a dispute between tanna’im

who disagreed about this matter.

Some derive

the law that valid offerings do not nullify one another

from here, and others derive it from there.

Rava raised an objection:

It is written:

“And the sons of Aaron shall bring the blood, and they shall sprinkle the blood.”

But it would have been sufficient for the verse to write, “And the sons of Aaron shall bring and sprinkle upon the altar,” without mentioning blood at all, since what is there for them to receive and sprinkle as a result of the slaughter if not blood,