Zevachim 81b — the Talmud in English

And if so,

what ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

does the verse come to teach

twice,

“blood”—“blood”?

Since

I

would

be able

to say:

I have no

[source for the law that] bloods that became mixed may be brought

except these

sacrifices, such as

a burnt offering that became mixed with its substitute, for even

if the burnt offering and its substitute became mixed

while alive, both may be brought,

for their laws are equal; therefore we are not concerned with the mixture of their bloods.

From where is it derived to include a thanks offering and peace offerings

that became mixed with one another, whose laws are not equal, for the thanks offering is eaten for one day and one night, while the peace offerings are eaten for two days and one night?

I include the thanks offering and peace offerings, which come through a vow or a voluntary offering, like it

of the burnt offering.

From where is it derived to include

the blood of

the guilt offering

that became mixed with the blood of the burnt offering, which is brought, despite the fact that if the guilt offering and burnt offering became mixed while alive, it would be impossible to bring them?

I include the guilt offering, which requires four applications, like it

of the burnt offering.

A firstborn, tithe animal, and Paschal offering

whose blood became mixed with the blood of the burnt offering,

from where

[is it derived] that they may be brought?

The verse comes to teach: “blood—blood.”

And Rava analyzes:

Is it not

that what we derive from the redundancy of “blood—blood” is to inform us that even the bloods of

the end of a burnt offering and a firstborn—and infer from this that the place of a burnt offering

is

the place of the remnants?!

And we reject this:

No,

you cannot prove this from here; rather, it is speaking of the bloods of

the beginning of a burnt offering and a firstborn. And what does it come to teach us? That burnt offerings do not nullify one another!

And we challenge: The fact that burnt 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”?!

And we answer:

It is a dispute among the tannaim: There is one who derives it from here, and there is one who derives it from here.

And now we have found three teachings of three tannaim for the law that burnt offerings do not nullify one another.

The first, from

“They are sacred.”

The second, from

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

And the third, from

“blood—blood.”

And we inquire concerning it: Why did each one of the tannaim not learn the teachings of the other two tannaim?

And these tannaim do not derive it from “And he shall take of the blood of the bull and of the blood of the goat,”

because

they hold that one does not mix

the blood of the bull and the blood of the goat in order to apply them

to the corners

of the inner altar; rather, they apply separately from the blood of the bull and separately from the blood of the goat, and consequently we have no teaching remaining that the blood of the goat retains its status even when it is mixed.

And these tannaim

do not derive it from “blood—blood,”

because the redundancy of

“blood—blood” is not understood by them

as a redundancy, since it had to be written, as it is the wording of the verse.

Rather,

this is difficult:

from “They are sacred”—

what is the reason

that these tannaim

do not derive

it

from it?

And we answer:

They hold

that the verse

“They are sacred”

comes to teach another teaching:

They are brought, but their substitutes are not brought.

And the other one derives it from “Whether ox or sheep

—

it is the Lord’s.”

And he expounds it as follows:

It is brought, but its substitute is not brought.

Come and hear:

We learned in our Mishna: Blood applied below that became mixed with blood applied above must be poured into the channel; but if the priest

applied

it

above, and did not consult—

both these and those agree that he should return and apply above. Both these and those count for him.

And we analyze:

Is it not

that a sin offering and a burnt offering became mixed, and since he applied it above,

the blood of the sin offering in the mixture became

remnants? And it teaches: “Both these and those agree that he should return and apply below.” And infer from this: The place of the burnt offering is the place of the remnants.

When Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef came, he said: They say in the West—

here we are dealing with a case where

the blood of the beginning of

an external sin offering became mixed with the internal remnants,

of an internal sin offering, for after he applied some of them above, both of them became remnants [see Rashi carefully].

Abaye said to him: If you establish it as a case in which remnants became mixed with remnants,

let the Master say: In a case where

the remnants of an external sin offering became mixed

with the remnants

of an external sin offering.

And we answer:

Perhaps this comes to teach us

by establishing it as a case in which they became mixed with the remnants of an internal sin offering, that

even according to the one who says

that the pouring of the

remnants

of the internal bloods

prevents atonement,

this is specifically when he did not apply any of them on the base of the external altar. But if he applied some, so that only

some were lacking

from the remnants,

they do not prevent atonement.

And here, this is indeed speaking of a case where the remnants were reduced by the fact that he initially applied some of them on the altar above, which is not their place of application.

Rava Tosafa'a said to Ravina: What pressure was there upon Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef to establish it as a case where the blood of an external sin offering became mixed with the remnants of an internal sin offering, so that we would be unable to prove that the place of the burnt offering is the place of the remnants? For

we established that case

where a sin offering and a burnt offering became mixed

in

a majority of upper applications, and he applied above the measure of the lower applications and more,

and he thereby fulfilled

the obligation of the sin offering. But he did not fulfill the obligation of the burnt offering, for he had already applied above the measure of the lower applications and more. And that which he applies below is only in order to fulfill the obligation of applying the remnants of the sin offering, and this blood he pours on the base ledge and not on the lower wall of the altar; consequently, there is no proof that the place of the burnt offering is the place of the remnants?!

He said to him

Ravina to Rava Tosafa'a:

These words

that we established as a case where there was a majority of upper applications and he applied above the measure of the lower applications and more, are only

according to what they said initially,

that their dispute was concerning a mixture in which the substances are blended, and therefore we seek forced resolutions, so that there should not be a difficulty with what Rav Ashi said, that Rabbi Eliezer holds

there is no blending.

But

the conclusion

of the matter is that they did not dispute a blended mixture, but rather

in

a dispute concerning

cups,

where a cup of a burnt offering became mixed with a cup of a sin offering, and Rabbi Eliezer says concerning both of them that it should be applied above and below. It follows that both bloods are fit. If, then, we establish this case—where the priest applied and did not consult—as also speaking of a sin offering and a burnt offering, everyone would agree that he should apply from both of them below; and if he applies them in that same place, on the lower wall of the altar, it would be proven that the place of the burnt offering is the place of the remnants. Therefore, he established this case—where he applied above and did not consult—as a case where the blood of an external sin offering became mixed with the remnants of an internal one.

Mishna:

Bloods

applied inside

in the Sanctuary

that became mixed with bloods applied outside

on the external altar may not be applied either inside or outside, because it is forbidden to change the place of application of the blood of one [offering] in the mixture for the purpose of applying the blood of the other [offering] in its place. Here, if he applies some of the mixture’s blood outside, it turns out that he is applying outside also from the internal blood. And if he applies it inside, it turns out that he is applying also from the external blood. Therefore,

they must be poured into the channel. [And the tanna does not hold like Rabbi Eliezer, who said that one “regards” one [blood] as though it were water, and the other as blood.]

And if he transgressed the prohibition against changing [the place], and

applied

from the mixture’s blood

outside

first,

and then applied

from the mixture’s blood

inside, it is valid.

The prohibition that he committed, he committed; but the transgression of the prohibition does not invalidate the blood.

And if he transgressed and applied from the mixture’s blood

inside

first,

and then applied

from the mixture

outside—

Rabbi Akiva deems invalid

the application of the blood on the external altar,

but the Sages deem valid.

For Rabbi Akiva says: All bloods that entered to effect atonement in the Sanctuary are invalid,

and it is impossible to apply them outside.

And the Sages say: The blood of

a sin offering

external

alone

is rendered invalid when it was brought inside in order to effect atonement, but not other bloods.

Rabbi Eliezer says: Even

the blood of

the guilt offering

that was brought inside is invalid, because the guilt offering was equated with the sin offering,

as it is stated:

“Like the sin offering—

like the guilt offering.”

Gemara:

And we inquire concerning it:

And let Rabbi Eliezer also dispute

with the tanna of our Mishna, since he holds “one regards” [one of the bloods as water and the other as blood],

in this case,

and let him validate the application of the blood ab initio, by “regarding” the second blood [which is applied not in its place] as though it were water.

And we answer:

How should he act?

Should he apply outside

first,

and afterward apply inside,

it is not possible to do so, for

just as it is a mitzva to give precedence

to the application of the bloods of a sin offering, which are

upper

[which are applied above the scarlet line]

over

the application of the bloods of a burnt offering, which are

lower

[below the scarlet line],

so it is a mitzva to give precedence

to the application

of

inside,

namely, the application of the blood of an internal sin offering,