פירוש על זבחים 8:13

כל שזבחים שנתערבו בחטאות המתות – this is what he said: all the animal offerings that were mixed up with sin-offerings left to die or with the ox to be stoned.

Introduction Our mishnah deals with sacrifices that become mixed up with other animals. There are three possibilities in the mishnah for the type of animal the sacrifice is mixed up with: 1) Animals that cannot be eaten or sacrificed. 2) Animals that can be eaten but not sacrificed. 3) Animals that can be sacrificed or eaten.

אפילו אחת בריבוי ימותו כולן – for since they had become mixed up with that from which are forbidden to derive benefit, there is no remedy to redeem them that we say that they should graze until they become unfit. And they are not abrogated through a majority, for they are considered living creatures and are not nullified. And sin-offerings left to die are five in number, and they are these: the offspring of a sin-offering, an animal substituted for a sin-offering, a sin-offering whose owners have died, a sin-offering whose owners have already gained atonement through another offering and a sin-offering of sheep or goats that is more than a year old. These five sin-offerings we place them in a closed place until they die on their own, and they are called “sin-offerings left to die.”

All sacrifices which became mixed up with hatats that must be left to die, or with an ox that is to be stoned, even one in ten thousand, all must be left to die. To understand this clause we need to explain what a hatat is that must be left to die. There are five categories of this type of problematic hatat, cases where for some reason the hatat cannot be sacrificed and all that can be done with it is let it die. We shall learn more about this when we learn Tractate Temurah. If a valid sacrifice becomes mixed up with a hatat that must be left to die, then all of the animals that are mixed up must be left to die. The same is true if it is mixed up with an ox that has been condemned to be stoned for either killing a person or for having sexual relations with a person. In both of these cases, none of the animals mixed up can be sacrificed, even if one forbidden hatat becomes mixed up with 10,000 valid ones.

בשור שנעבדה בו עבירה – that it (i.e., the ox) was disqualified for offering as a sacrifice. As for example, that it put a person to death on the testimony of a single witness who is not prohibited to a commoner, because it is not stoned other than through two witnesses.

If they were mixed up with: an ox with which a transgression had been committed [for instance]: one that had killed a man on the testimony of one witness or of its owner; or [an ox] that had sexual relations with a woman or one with whom a man had sexual relations; or an animal set aside [for idolatry], or that had been worshipped [as an idol]; or that was the fee of a whore, or [a dog's] exchange; or that was kilayim; or terefah; or an animal born through the caesarean section, [In all of these cases] they must graze until they become defected, then they are sold, and one brings [a sacrifice] of the same kind at the price of the better of them. If the sacrifice is mixed up with another animal that cannot be sacrificed, then the animals should graze until they become defected [and thereby unfit for sacrifice], then they can all be sold and the proceeds from the better of them (or the best if there were more than two) must be used to buy a sacrifice of the same kind that was originally mixed in. The mishnah now lists possible ways for a sacrifice to become invalid. The first is that it transgresses or a transgression is committed with it. An animal that kills a human being must be executed and its meat is forbidden, but only if there are two witnesses to the killing. If there is one witness the animal cannot be sacrificed but it can be slaughtered and then eaten. Similarly, an animal that has sexual relations with a human being must be executed but only if there are two witnesses. If there is only one witness it is forbidden to sacrifice the animal but not for people to eat it. The next two categories are animals that were involved in idolatry. If there is only one witness, the animals are only prohibited as sacrifices. According to Deuteronomy 23:19 one may not bring “the fee of a whore or the pay of a dog into the house of the Lord.” The rabbis understand these two things to be an animal used to pay a prostitute or an ox used as payment for a dog. Neither of them can be used as a sacrifice. An animal born from mixed parentage, such as a ram and a ewe, cannot be sacrificed, although it can be eaten. The mishnah here lists a terefah, an animal who after having been slaughtered is found to have a defect that would have caused it to die. A terefah cannot be eaten, so commentators explain that this refers to the offspring of a terefah, which according to some opinions, cannot be sacrificed. An animal born through cesarean section also cannot be sacrificed, although it can be eaten. In all of these cases the animal cannot be used as a sacrifice but it can be eaten. Therefore, if one of these is mixed up with a sacrificial animal, they do not have to let the animals die, as was the case in the previous clause.

או על פי הבעלים – that its owners came to the Jewish court and admitted that it had put a person to death, that it would be exempted from stoning that they admit to a fine, it would be exempt. But to On-High, it would be prohibited, for we hold (Leviticus 1:2): “[When any of you presents an offering of cattle to the LORD, he shall choose his offering from the herd] or from the flock/ומן הצאן,” to exclude that [ox] which gores.

If they were mixed up with unblemished [animals] of hullin, the hullin must be sold to those who need that kind [for a sacrifice]. If the sacrifice was mixed up with unblemished non-sacred animals, then all of the animals can be sold to people who need such animals as sacrifices and then they will all eventually be used as sacrifices.

ברובע ונרבע – by the testimony of one witness, or by the owners, or prior to the completion of the court case, or that [animal] which killed someone or the ox which had a sexual relation with a human being (i.e., a non-Jew) or an ox with which a non-Jewish person had sexual relations, which is forbidden to the All-High, but not to the commoner.

מוקצה – that he had separated for a sacrifice to idolatry and was also worshipped, both of them are permitted to a commoner.

באתנן ומחיר – all of these are unconsecrated animals, and one animal sacrifice is mixed with them, all of them should sent out to pasture. For it is impossible to ritually slaughter one of them without a blemish, lest that this one is the animal offering. For the person who ritually slaughters Holy Things outside [the Temple courtyard] is liable for extirpation. But to sell them for the needs of burnt offerings is impossible, for they are invalidated.

ויביא בדמי היפה שבהן מאותו המין – if it was a sin-offering, [let him purchase] another sin-offering; if it was burnt-offering, [let him purchase] another burnt-offering. And he should the monies according to the measurement of the worth of the best of them and state: “Every place which is animal offering will be redeemed by these monies.”

נתערב – one animal offering in many unconsecrated fit/kosher animals.

ימכרו החולין – all of them.

לצריכי אותו המין – that the one animal offering was mixed in with them, and it was found that all of them are Holy Things from one species but it is not known who are the owners of each and every one, for the first animal offering – the name of its owners was upon it, but it is not known which it is. And the remedy, that each of one of them should be offered as a sacrifice in the name of someone and he should state that he will offer each of them as a sacrifice, behold this one is in the name of its owners.

מין במינו – a sin-offering with a sin-offering, a burnt-offering with a burnt-offering, a peace-offering with a peace-offering, but they belong to many owners.

Introduction In yesterday’s mishnah we dealt with sacrifices that were mixed up with animals that either were already disqualified from being sacrifices, or were not sacrifices. Today’s mishnah discusses sacrifices that were mixed up with other sacrifices.

זה יקריב כל אחד לשם מי שהוא – and he doesn’t mention the name of person. These words concern the sacrifice of women that don’t require the placing of hands on the head of an offering, as it is written )Leviticus 1:2,4) “Speak to the Israelite people, [and say unto them]…He shall lay his hand [upon the head of the burnt offering],” Israelite men place their hands on the head of an offering, but women of the Israelite people do not place their hands on the head of an offering (see also Talmud Eruvin 96b, Talmud Hagigah 16b and Kiddushin 36a), but not on a sacrifice of men that require placing of their hands on their head of the offering.

A sacrifice [which was mixed up] with another sacrifice, both being of the same kind: this one is offered in the name of whoever is its owner, and the other is offered in the name of whoever is its owner. If both sacrificial animals are the same kind, for instance both are hatats, then both can be offered as hatats. When they are offered, instead of mentioning the name of the owner, the priest should use a general formula, “in the name of whoever is its owner.” In this way both owners can get credit.

מין כשאינו מניו ירעו – for it is impossible to offer it up as a sacrifice, for they are divided in the giving of monies or their burning [of the fats and limbs] or their consumption.

A sacrifice [which was mixed up] with a sacrifice, both being of different kinds: they must graze until they become unfit, and then he purchases at the price of the better of them [an animal] of each kind, and he pays the loss of the excess out of his own pocket. In this case the two sacrifices are different kinds. For instance a hatat becomes mixed up with an olah. It is impossible to sacrifice either because their sacrificial rituals are different. Therefore, he let both graze until they become unfit by having a defect which disqualifies them from being sacrifices. Then the animals themselves can be redeemed and the money used to buy new sacrifices. However, he must pay for each new sacrifice at the higher price at which the animals were sold. For instance, if one animal was sold for two selas, and the other for one sela, then he must buy two new sacrifices, each for two selas. The extra sela he must make up from his own pocket. In this way, he can ensure that no sacrifice has lost out by being worth less than the original animal.

ויפסיד המותר מביתו (let him lose [make up] the added difference from his own property) – for if one sold for two and the other sold for one, he has to bring from every species for two, since it is not known from which species it is that which was sold for two, and it is found that he loses one from his own property.

If they were mixed up with a firstling or tithe, they must graze until they become unfit, and then they are eaten as firstling or tithe. If a sacrifice is mixed up with a tithe or firstling, then they must let all the animals graze until they become unfit for sacrifice. The tithe and the firstling cannot be redeemed for money until they have a defect, so he has to wait with all of the animals. At this point he can eat all of the animals as if they were all firstling or tithe. What this means is that they can’t be sold at a butcher’s shop, nor can their flesh be weighed out on scales. In addition, he must redeem the animal that was set aside as a sacrifice at the value of the most expensive of the animals and with that money he has to buy a new sacrifice to make up for the one that was lost.

נתערבו בבכור ובמעשר – [if they were mixed up with a firstling or the tithe] of cattle. For they don’t have redemption that its holiness will be redeemed on their monetary value and they (i.e., the animals) will leave to become unconsecrated, but rather, they are consumed with their blemishes, the firstling is consumed by the Kohanim and the tithe by its owners.

All [sacrifices] can be mixed up, except the hatat and the asham. All sacrifices can possibly be mixed up together, except for an asham and a hatat because a hatat almost always has to be brought from a female animal, (the exception is the male goat brought by the chieftain (Leviticus 4:23)]. The asham is always a male ram or sheep and never a goat. Thus there is no possibility that these two sacrifices could ever be confused.

כולן ירעו עד שיסתאבו – when a blemish befalls them. And he will say, every place where the animal offering becomes redeemed for these monies. And they are permitted to eat them, as long as that they eat them according to the law of the firstling and the tithe, that we will not sell them in shops/a mercantile fair and they will not weigh them with a measure of capacity/Litra. And from the monies of the animal offering, he will offer up his species of the offering.

הכל יכולים להתערב – that is to say if they were combined, there is a doubt in their mixture.

חוץ מן החטאת עם האשם – for the sin-offering is never a ram, and the guilt-offering is not anything but a ram. But if it they are the guilt-offerings of a leper or of a Nazirite, they come from lambs, nevertheless, they are male, but the sin-offering does not come other than from a female. But the sin-offering and the burnt-offering combine, such as the goat of the chieftain with the goat of the free-will burnt-offering. And all the more so, the sin-offering and the peace-offering, for all are offered as peace-offerings, whether male or whether female. And similarly, the ram of the free-will burnt-offering with a guilt-offering.

אשם שנתערב בשלמים (see previous Mishnah where this subject is discussed) – for the giving of the blood of the guilt-offering and the peace-offering is similar (i.e., in the north – see Tractate Zevakhim, Chapter 5, Mishnah 3).

An asham which was mixed up with a shelamim: They graze until they become unfit. Rabbi Shimon says: they are slaughtered at the north [side of the altar] and eaten in accordance with [the laws of] the more stringent of them. They said to him: one must not bring sacrifices to a place of unfitness. According to the first opinion in the mishnah, if an asham and a shelamim get mixed up, then the same thing must be done with them as is done with all sacrifices that are mixed up they graze until they become unfit, and then he must bring two new sacrifices, both at the cost of the higher of them (see yesterday’s mishnah). According to Rabbi Shimon, there is another solution in this case. Both sacrifices can be offered and slaughtered in the north of the Temple courtyard, as is the rule for the asham. They are eaten in accordance with the stricter laws, which are those for the asham. They must be eaten within the Temple walls, by male priests only, for one day and the following night. With regard to the blood applications, the laws are the same. The rabbis respond that this might cause the loss of a sacrifice. One of these sacrifices is a shelamim, which can be eaten for two days and the night in between. If we treat both as ashams, and they are left over after the first night, we will treat them as remnant and burn the leftover. This might cause a valid sacrifice to be destroyed. Since unnecessarily burning sacrifices should be avoided so as not to disgrace the sacrifice, it is better that neither are offered and both are left to graze until they become unfit, as was described above.

שניהם ישחטו בצפון – but peace-offerings are ritually slaughtered in every place and one is able also to slaughter them in the om the north in the place when he slaughters the guilt-offering.

If pieces [of sacrificial flesh] were mixed up with pieces [of other sacrificial flesh], most sacred sacrifices with lesser sacrifices, [pieces] that are eaten one day with [those] that are eaten two days and one night, they must be eaten in accordance with [the laws of] the more stringent of them. If pieces of sacrificial meat get mixed up, for instance hatat meat with shelamim meat, then the rabbis agree with Rabbi Shimon that the only thing we can do is treat all of the meat with the laws governing the stricter of the sacrifices. In this case, all of the meat will be eaten by priests, for one day and one night, within the Temple confines, as are the rules for the hatat. Any meat left over will have to be burned, because there is no other solution in this case.

כחמור שבהן – inside from the enclosures in the Temple courtyard for male Kohanim during eh day and at night. But not like the Lesser Peace-Offerings that are consumed throughout the city for all people for two days and one night (see Tractate Zevakhim, Chapter 5, Mishnah 8). And the owner of the peace-offerings fulfilled his vow, for peace-offerings are sacrificed for their own sake, each person offers it for the sake of someone.

אין מביאין קדשים לבית הפסול – that he diminishes the consumption of peace-offerings whether concerning those who eats them or whether the time of their consumption and brings them to residue/remnant. But rather, they should let them graze until they become unfit/blemished and then they should be sold as we stated regarding Holy Things with Holy Things where it is one type mixed with another type, and he should bring with the proceeds of the best of them [of that kind]. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon.

חתיכות בחתיכות – if pieces [of meat] of the Holy of Holies were mixed with a piece [of meat] of Lesser Holy Things or a piece [of meat] of Lesser Holy Things that are consumed on one day as for example, the peace-offerings of thanksgiving with pieces [of meat] of Lesser Holy Things that are consumed for two days and one night, which are the rest of the peace-offerings, in this, the Sages agree with Rabbi Shimon that they should consume in accordance with the rules of the more stringent of them, for what else should he do?

אברי חטאת – whose flesh/meat is consumed by the Kohanim.

Limbs of a hatat which were mixed up with limbs from an olah: Rabbi Eliezer says: he must place [them all] on the top [of the altar], and regard the flesh of the hatat on top as though it were wood. But the sages say: they must become disfigured, and then go out to the place of burning. In this mishnah a hatat and an olah have been slaughtered and cut up and then the limbs of the two animals get mixed up. As a reminder, a hatat can be eaten by male priests while an olah is completely burned on the altar. The problem is that the limbs cannot be eaten, because of the olah. The debate is over whether the hatat can be burned with the olah meat. Rabbi Eliezer says that he can burn the hatat flesh as long as his intent is not to “turn it into smoke” as is done with sacrifices, but rather to burn it as if it was wood. The other rabbis say that this is not possible. Rather they must leave all the meat until the following morning, when it becomes “disfigured” by being left over. At this point it becomes remnant and it must be burned as is always the rule with remnant sacrifices.

שנתערבו באברי עולה – that is entirely burned up.

יתן למעלן – he should place the limbs of the entire mixture on the wood. And the reason of Rabbi Eliezer is as Scripture states (Leviticus 2:11): “for no leaven or honey may be turned into smoke as a gift to the LORD,” and this is the logical implication of the Biblical verse (ibid.,): “for no leaven or honey may be turned into smoke,” and you should not turn into smoke anything that from which is a fire-offering to God, which is the residue of the sacrifice. “You may bring them to the LORD as an offering of choice products” (Leviticus 2:12), from the leaven and honey to God, the two loaves from the leaven and the honey from the First Fruits from the fruit of the trees which are figs and dates. [And the words], “upon the altar” (ibid.), we expound it, whether it is the leaven or the honey or whether it is the residue, for a pleasing odor [to God] you do not offer them up, but you do offer them up for the sake of wood, and this is what is stated, “and I regard the meat of the sin-offering [which is] on top [of the fires] as if it were wood.”

וחכמים אומרים תעובר צורתן – that is to say, he should leave them until they become disqualified and they would go out to the place of burning [as remnant] like the rest of the consecrated animals that are disqualified, and he doesn’t offer them up on the altar, for he has transgressed because of all that from it were to be burnt-offerings (Leviticus 2:11): “for no heaven or honey may be turned into smoke as a gift to the LORD,” – which he violated not turning it into smoke, but the sin-offering and the portions of the offering placed upon the altar are offered as burnt-offerings, the flesh comes under the ban against not turning it into smoke. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

אברים באברי בעלי מומים – kosher/fit limbs that were mixed with one limb of a blemished beast, and a Kohen comes and he doesn’t know of their mixture and he offered one of the heads, he should offer all of the heads ab initio, for we assign the prohibited one with that which was offered, but all of these are kosher. And in the Gemara (Tractate Zevakhim 77b) it explains that Rabbi Eliezer did not permit other than to offer them in twos [but not singly], for certainly one from those pairs is permitted and this sacrifice was to be offered because of that one that is permissible. But if it is because that one where there is doubtful prohibition, there would be a doubt with that which was offered first before he changed his mind. But “one by one” lest he didn’t give that sacrifice to be made even according to Rabbi Eliezer, for perhaps this one was forbidden.

Introduction In this mishnah, limbs of unblemished olahs which can be burned on the altar become mixed up with limbs of blemished olahs which cannot be burned on the altar. As in yesterday’s mishnah, Rabbi Eliezer and the other rabbis debate.

חוץ מאחד – except for one pair. And this is explained in the Gemara, that with one pair alone [of heads or legs], Rabbi Eliezer admits that this sacrifice was not given to be offered, as we have stated.

Limbs of [unblemished olahs which were mixed up] with the limbs of blemished [olahs]: Rabbi Eliezer says: if [the priest] offered the head of one of them, all the heads are to be offered; the legs of one of them, all the legs are to be offered. But the sages say: even if they had offered all except one of them, it goes forth to the place of burning. All of the sages agree that what he should do is take all of the flesh out to the place of burning, where disqualified sacrifices are disposed (this is not the altar). The debate is over what to do if some of the limbs have already been burned on the altar. Rabbi Eliezer says that if he already burned a head on the altar and then realized the situation, then we can suppose that that head was from the blemished animal and all of the rest of the heads can be offered on the altar, with the assumption that they were from the unblemished animals. The same is true for the other limbs once one has been burned on the altar all of the rest of the same type of limb can be burned. The other sages disagree and say that we can never assume that the already burned limbs were from the blemished animal. We must always be concerned that the flesh that has not yet been burned is from the blemished animal. Therefore, all remaining flesh must be taken out to the burning place and burned there.

אם יש בו מראה דם כשר – and these words [apply] when the water fell in to the blood of Holy Things [and it has the appearance of blood - which can be sprinkled on the altar]. But if the blood of Holy Things fell into water, we state, each drop is nullified as it falls (Talmud Zevakhim 78a), and even if it has the appearance of blood, it is invalid.

Introduction Our mishnah deals with blood from a sacrificial animal that becomes mixed up with some other liquid. The question is: can it still be sprinkled on the altar?

נתערב ביין – which is red.

If blood was mixed with water, if it retains the appearance of blood, it is fit [to be sprinkled on the altar]. If the blood is mixed with water, it can still be sprinkled on the altar, as long as it is not so watered down that it loses the appearance of blood.

רואין אותו כאילו הוא מים – but if this blood is recognized in those of the water, it is kosher/fit.

If it was mixed with wine, we regard it as though it were water. If the blood is mixed with red wine, then it will have the appearance of blood even if there is mostly red wine. So what we do is we look at the wine as if it were water, and if there is enough wine such that if it were water there would no longer be an appearance of blood, it cannot be used.

בדם בהמה – [the blood of an animal] that is unconsecrated.

If it was mixed with the blood of a beast or wild animal, we regard it as though it were water. The same is true if the blood is mixed in with the blood of a non-sacrificial beast or a wild animal (that can never be used as a sacrifice). Since this mixture will always have the appearance of blood, we look at the blood of the non-sacrificial animal as if it were water, and if there is enough of this blood such that if it were water there would no longer be an appearance of blood, it cannot be used.

רואין אותו – the blood of an unconsecrated [animal] as if it is water, and if it had the appearance of the reddish color of kosher blood that is recognized by them, it is kosher, and even though the disqualified blood is greater than it by a lot.

Rabbi Judah said: blood cannot nullify blood. According to Rabbi Judah like things do not nullify each other. Thus no matter how much blood there was from the non-sacrificial animal, the mixture can still be sprinkled on the altar.

אין דם מבטל דם – according to Rabbi Yehuda, one type mixed with the same type is not annulled, and even a drop within a large vessel. Even though if the blood was water, the kosher blood is not recognized in them, and even so, it is kosher/fit for sprinkling. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.

נתערב בדם הפסולים – as for example in blood that was ritually slaughtered outside of its proper time.

Introduction This mishnah continues to deal with blood from a valid sacrificial animal that is mixed up with other blood.

ישפך לאמה – to the river-arm/sewer that passes in the Temple courtyard and goes down to the Kidron ravine/river-bed. And we don’t state that we view it as if it is water, but if the kosher blood is recognized in them, he would sprinkle it, for we make the decree that perhaps he would come to make fit blood that is disqualified in their eyes. And similarly, the last blood that is oozing out of a vein. For from the Torah, the last blood that is oozing out of a vein is not appropriate for atonement. As it is written (Leviticus 17:11): “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have assigned it to you for making expiation for your lives upon the altar.” The life blood that leaves through it atones, but when the soul doesn’t leave, it does not atone. And we make the decree on the life blood that was mixed with the last blood that is oozing out of a vein, for perhaps it comes to be made to be fit through the sprinkling of the last blood that is oozing out of a vein in his eyes.

If it was mixed with the blood of unfit [animals], it must be poured out into the duct. In this case the blood of the fit animal is mixed up with blood from an animal that either cannot be sacrificed or was sacrificed and became unfit at some point during the sacrificial procedure. It is forbidden to sprinkle blood from such an animal on the altar. Therefore, all of this blood must be poured into the aqueduct that flows through the Temple courtyard. This aqueduct was used to clean out the Temple, so putting blood there is akin to throwing it in the garbage.

רבי אליעזר מכשיר – ab initio with the last blood that is oozing out of a vein that was mixed with the blood of the soul. For he holds that the last blood that is oozing out of a vein of an animal is found to be greater than the life blood, therefore, why do we make a decree, it is to for him like when the blood of an unconsecrated animal is mixed with the blood of Holy Things, that we don’t decree anything regarding it. For when it is mixed with disqualified blood, which is a matter that is frequent, Rabbi Eliezer does not dispute. But the first Tanna/teacher holds that sometimes when the last blood that is oozing out of a vein is greater than the life blood. Therefore, he decreed where it was not greater, on account of the where it is greater. But however, where the Kohen took counsel with the Jewish court if he should give this mixture or if not, and he gave of his own accord, the first Tanna/teacher admits that it is kosher/appropriate, for it is mere decree and de facto it is kosher. But if he came to change his mind, we tell him that to pour it into the sewer because of the decree. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

[If it was mixed] with the blood that came out after death, it must be poured out into the duct. Rabbi Eliezer declares it fit. The blood that is sprinkled on the altar is the blood that spurts out of the animal as the animal is dying. This is the “life-blood” for it is the blood that carries the animal’s life force. Blood that seeps out after the animal has already died is not sprinkled on the altar. So according to the first opinion, if the life-blood that was supposed to be used is mixed in with this post-mortem blood, it all must be poured into the duct. Rabbi Eliezer allows this blood to be used, at least in this case when it was accidentally mixed in with the valid life-blood.

If he [the priest] did not ask but sprinkled it, it is valid. If the priest didn’t ask what to do in any of these cases, and just went ahead and sprinkled a mixture of valid and invalid on the altar, then his sprinkling is valid. According to the Tosefta, it is valid only if the invalid blood is not of sufficient quantity such that if it were water it would cause the mixture to lose the appearance of blood (see yesterday’s mishnah).

דם תמימים שנתערב בדם בעלי מומין ישפך לאמה – and in this, Rabbi Eliezer does not dispute, for he transgressed through their sprinkling because of (Leviticus 22:20): “You shall not offer any that has a defect.”

[If] blood of unblemished animals [was mixed] with blood of blemished animals, it must be poured out into the duct. Blood of blemished animals cannot be spilled on the altar, therefore this mixture must be dumped out into the duct.

נתער בכוס שבכוסות – a cup of blood of an animal with a blemish with cups of kosher blood, and it is not known which cup of blood is that of a blemished animal.

[If] a goblet [of valid blood was mixed up] with other goblets [of invalid blood]: Rabbi Eliezer said: if he [the priest] offered [sprinkled] one goblet, all the goblets can be offered; But the sages say: even if they offered all of them save one, it must be poured out into the duct. Here, instead of the blood being mixed up, goblets of blood are mixed up. Some of these goblets have the valid blood from unblemished animals and one has the invalid blood of a blemished animal. All of the sages seem to agree that all of the goblets should be spilled out into the duct. They debate what should be done if one of the goblets had already had its blood sprinkled. According to Rabbi Eliezer, we can treat this like the situation with the mixed up limbs in mishnah five. If one of the goblets’ contents has been sprinkled, we can assume that the rest of the goblets are those containing valid blood and their blood can be sprinkled. The sages disagree, as they did above in mishnah five, and say that in all circumstances all of the blood must be poured out into the duct.

ר' אליעזר אומר אם קרב אחד מהם כו' – in the manner that they disputed with the limbs [of kosher animals] and the limbs of animals with blemishes (see Mishnah 5 of this chapter), so they also disputed with regard to cups, as it is explained above. And it is necessary to dispute on both of them, for if we were to teach [only] regarding limbs, it is in this that Rabbi Eliezer states that they should be offered because their expiation is effected with the kosher [blood], that is, with the sprinkling of their blood which is the essence of the atonement, but regarding a cup [of one kind of blood] that was mixed with cups [of another kind of blood], that the essence of expiation is through deterioration, I would say, no. so both are necessary.

הנתנין למטה – from the red line. As, for example, blood of the burnt-offering and the guilt-offering and the peace-offering and the firstling and the Passover offering and the tithe [which are offered below the red line], that were mixed up with the blood of the sin-offering which was sprinkled above [the red line].

If [blood] that is to be sprinkled below [the red line on the altar] was mixed with blood that is sprinkled above: As we have seen in earlier chapters, some sacrificial blood is sprinkled on the altar above the red line that runs through its middle, and some is sprinkled below. In the case in our mishnah, blood from a sacrifice that is sprinkled above, namely a hatat whose blood is sprinkled on the four corners of the altar, is mixed in with blood that is sprinkled below from either an olah, an asham or a shelamim.

רבי אליעזר אומר יתן למעלה – gifts of sin-offerings. But even though that the blood of the lower sacrifices (i.e., sprinkled below the red line) ae mixed with it. For since he doesn’t intend to place/sprinkle the lower ones above, I see them as if they are water. And because it is a Mitzvah to advance the upper ones over the lower ones, for all of the sin-offerings precede the burnt-offerings, therefore, he sprinkles above first and afterward the lower ones, and in sprinkling the lower ones, it will count for him the spilling of the residue of the sin-offering and beginning of the gifts of the burnt-offering.

Rabbi Eliezer says: he must sprinkle [it] above, and I regard the lower [blood which was sprinkled] above as though it were water, and then he sprinkles again below. Rabbi Eliezer says that the first thing he should do is sprinkle the blood on the four corners of the altar, as is the rule for the hatat. Then Rabbi Eliezer employs a legal fiction similar to that which we saw him use in earlier mishnayot. The priest can look at the blood that was sprinkled above as if it were water, even though it may have in fact been from the blood that was supposed to be sprinkled below, and what is left in the mixture is blood that is supposed to be sprinkled below. Sprinkling the blood below will also count towards the requirement to pour out the remainder of that hatat blood below (see 5:3).

ישפכו לאמה – they don’t accept “seeing” (i.e., as in viewing the blood from the sacrifices sprinkled below the red line as water).

But the sages say: he must pour it out into the duct. As in all of the previous cases, the rabbis say that this should not be done. All of the mixture should be poured into the duct for disposal.

ואם לא נמלך ונתן כשר – for he sprinkled from it above. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Eliezer.

If he [the priest] did not ask but sprinkled it, it is valid. This is the same line that appeared at the end of mishnah seven. If the priest did apply the blood above the line, then the application is “ex post facto” valid.

הניתנין במתנה אחת – In the Gemara (Tractate Zevakhim 81a) as for example, cup of the blood of a firstling that was mixed in a cup of the blood of a tithe.

[If blood] which requires one application [was mixed] with blood [also] requiring one application, it [the mixture] should be presented with one application.
[If blood] which requires four applications [was mixed] with blood requiring four applications, they should be presented with four applications.
[If blood] which requires four applications [was mixed] with blood which requires one application: Rabbi Eliezer says: it [the mixture] should be presented with four applications. Rabbi Joshua says: it should be presented with one application.
Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Behold, he transgresses the [injunction] not to diminish [from God’s commandment]! Rabbi Joshua said to him: Behold, he transgresses the injunction not to add [to God’s commandments].
Rabbi Eliezer said to him: The injunction not to add applies only where it is by itself. Rabbi Joshua said to him: The injunction not to diminish applies only where it is by itself.
Moreover, Rabbi Joshua said: when you make [four] applications you transgress the injunction not to add, and perform an action with your own hands; whereas when you do not make [four] applications you transgress the injunction not to diminish, but do not perform an action with your own hands.
The first-born animal, the tithe and the pesah require only one blood application on the outer altar. Some other sacrifices require two applications that are actually four because they are applied on two corners. The hatat requires four distinct blood applications. Our mishnah deals with a case where blood from animals requiring different numbers of blood applications are mixed up with each other.
Note that unlike the previous cases where the mixture had invalid blood in it, in this case the mixture consists of only valid blood. The problem is not in the blood itself, but what exactly to do with it.
Sections one and two: If blood from animals requiring the same number of applications is mixed up then they can simply make that number of applications with the blood. These two sections are quite obvious and probably serve as an introduction to the more interesting case which arises in the next section.
Section three: Here blood requiring two different numbers of applications is mixed up. Rabbi Eliezer holds that in such a situation, they should apply the maximum number of applications, in this case four, whereas Rabbi Joshua holds that they should apply the minimum number of applications, one.
Section four: Let the battle begin! Rabbi Eliezer says that if they make only one application, they will be transgressing the biblical prohibition against diminishing from God’s commandments. Rabbi Joshua quickly responds that Rabbi Eliezer’s suggestion is also problematic, for by making four blood applications, he will be adding to God’s commandments, and this is also prohibited (see Deuteronomy 4:2).
Section five: Rabbi Eliezer explains that the prohibition against adding to God’s commandments only applies when the blood is alone, meaning it is not mixed in with blood that requires four applications. If someone were to take blood that requires one application and apply it four times, that would be a transgression. But in our case since some of the blood does require four applications, there is no transgression.
Of course, Rabbi Joshua responds accordingly that the same can be said with regard to the prohibition against diminishing from God’s commandments it would only apply if there was only blood requiring four applications and he applied it only once. Since some of the blood requires one application, there is no transgression.
This argument seems to be going nowhere!
Section six: So now we’re all tied up in the bottom of the ninth. Rabbi Eliezer had his arguments and Rabbi Joshua responded to each of them. The winning blow (to mix my metaphor) is delivered by Rabbi Joshua who says that in this situation it is preferable to transgress by omission rather than commission. It is preferable to make only one blood application and thereby omit the other three, than to make four applications, thereby adding on three to the blood which only required one.
Interesting, this becomes a halakhic rule in other situations. Generally, if there is a conflict of mitzvoth or a situation of such nature, it is better to not perform anything, than to potentially actively transgress a commandment. As I stated in my introduction, many rules that originally appear in Seder Kodashim, are adopted to other areas of halakhah. Temple law, while not in practice by the time of the Mishnah, remained a rich source of halakhah.

ינתנו מתנה אחת – from each cup individual cup he gives one gift [of sprinkling] from this cup and another gift [of sprinkling] from that cup.

מתן ארבע במתן ארבע – as, for example, the blood of a burnt-offering with the blood of a peace-offering or the blood of a guilt-offering, for both of them require two gifts which are four and both of them are [sprinkled] below [the red line].

מתן ארבע במתן אחד = as, for example, the [blood of] a burnt-offering with [the blood of] a firstling that both of them are [sprinkled] below [the red line].

רא"א ינתנו במתן ארבע – and I see the extra gifts that are sprinkled from the blood of the firstling as if they are water, and this is not [a violation of] “do not add” (i.e., Deuteronomy 13:1: “[Be careful to observe only that which I enjoin upon you:] neither add to it [nor take away from it.”].

במתנה אחת so that he will not transgress on “do not add” (see above, Deuteronomy 13:1), but regarding the burnt-offering, he has fulfilled it, for all that are given/sprinkled on the outer altar when they are given/sprinkled in one gift, atones.

ולא עשית מעשה בידך – and it is not similar to someone doing an action, to sitting and not doing and the prohibition comes of its own accord. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehoshua.

הניתנין בפנים כו' ישפכו לאמה – for we don’t say, “we see,” (see Mishnah 9 of this chapter) and it is prohibited to change these because of the fitness/acceptability of those. But Rabbi Eliezer who held that we state, “we see,” does not dispute here. For how should we proceed? Let us sprinkle outside and then afterwards inside, for just as it is a commandment to have the upper parts [of the red line] precede the lower parts, so it is a Mitzvah to have that which is offered inside precede that which is offered outside, for the inside is crucial. Let us sprinkle inside and afterwards sprinkle outside, since there is [the blood] of a sin-offering and a guilt-offering, for if it their blood was mixed with the inner blood, one is not able to state that he should give/sprinkle inside and afterwards, give/sprinkle outside, because it invalidates [the blood sprinkled outside, it was not decided with him (i.e., he could not state it absolutely). But if you would say that we should invalidate the [blood sprinkled] for the outside [sacrifices] in order to validate the [blood sprinkled] for the inner sacrifices, Rabbi Eliezer doe not state that we would invalidate them with our hands, and it is better to wait until sunset so that they will be invalidated of their own accord and they would be poured into the sewer.

Introduction While the blood of most sacrifices is sprinkled on the outer altar, the altar that was in the courtyard, some sacrifices have their blood sprinkled inside, on the golden altar that was in the Sanctuary (the Hekhal). These sacrifices were described in 5:2. Our mishnah deals with a situation where blood that was supposed to be sprinkled inside was mixed up with blood that was supposed to be sprinkled outside.

נתן בחוץ – a Kohen who did not consult [with the Jewish court] and gave/sprinkled from this mixture outside [the altar], it is kosher/fit.

If [blood] which is to be sprinkled inside [the Sanctuary] was mixed with [blood] that is to be sprinkled outside, it must be poured out into the duct. If inside and outside blood are mixed up together, then the mixture should be poured into the duct.

רבי עקיבא פוסל החיצון – for all the outer blood that entered inside [the altar] were invalidated.

If [the priest] sprinkled outside and then sprinkled inside, it is valid. If, however, the priest did not ask and went ahead and sprinkled the blood, if he first sprinkled it outside and then inside, it is valid.

וחכמים מכשירין – for all of the sacrifices except for the outside sin-offering that is invalidated because of (Leviticus 6:23): “But no sin offering may be eaten from which any blood is brought [into the Tent of Meeting for expiation in the sanctuary; any such shall be consumed in fire].” And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

[If he sprinkled] inside and then went back and sprinkled outside: Rabbi Akiva declares it unfit, But the sages declare it fit. For Rabbi Akiva says: all blood which entered the Sanctuary to make atonement is unfit; But the sages say: the hatat alone [is unfit]. R. Eliezer said: the asham too, for it says, “As is the hatat, so is the asham” (Leviticus 7:7). The thornier problem is if he first brought the blood inside and sprinkled it on the inner altar and then brought it back outside and sprinkled it on the outer altar. According to Rabbi Akiva, the blood sprinkled on the outer altar is invalid. According to Rabbi Akiva, once blood that is supposed to be sprinkled on the outer altar is brought into the Sanctuary, it is disqualified. The other sages say that both blood applications are valid. The rule that once blood enters the Sanctuary it is invalid to spill it outside was stated only with regard to the hatat, as it says in Leviticus 6:23, “But no sin offering (hatat) whose blood has been brought into the Tent of Meeting for expiation in the sanctuary may be eaten; it shall be burned in the fire.” Rabbi Eliezer expands this to include the asham because Leviticus 7:7 says that the rules that govern the hatat also govern the asham.

יצא אחד מהן לחוץ – outside of the Temple courtyard.

Introduction This mishnah deals with blood from a hatat, which should be sprinkled on the outer altar (found in the Temple courtyard).

הפנימי כשר – and he gives from it his gifts and the sacrifice is kosher/fit.

If the blood of a hatat was received in two goblets and one of them went outside [the Temple courtyard], the inside one is fit. In this case the outside one is rendered invalid but the inside one, which never left the Temple courtyard, remains fit.

וחכמים פוסלין – as it is written (Leviticus 6:23): “[But no sin offering may be eaten] from which any blood is brought [into the Tent of Meeting for expiation in the sanctuary],” and even part of its blood, it is invalid, for it is not written, “its blood.”

If one of them entered within [the Sanctuary]: Rabbi Yose the Galilean declares the outer one fit. The sages disqualify it. When one of the two goblets goes into the Sanctuary, it becomes unfit, as we learned in yesterday’s mishnah. The debate is over whether the goblet of blood that remained outside of the Sanctuary, in the Temple courtyard (where it belongs) is also unfit. Rabbi Yose the Galilean argues that the outer one remains fit, but the sages say that in this case, since part of the blood which came from the animal became unfit by going inside the Sanctuary, it all becomes unfit.

ומה אם במקום שהמחשבה פוסלת בחוץ (see Tractate Zevakhim, Chapter 2, Mishnah 2 and the beginning of this Mishnah) – meaning to say, that just as the outside [of the Temple courtyard], which is a place where the intention invalidates it, if he intended to perform the ritual slaughter on the condition to sprinkle its blood outside [the Temple courtyard], it is invalidated.

Rabbi Yose the Galilean: if the place where an intention [directed to it] disqualifies, i.e. without, you do not treat what is left [inside] as what went out; then the place where an intention [directed to it] does not disqualify, i.e. within, is it not logical that we do not treat what is left [outside] as what entered within? Rabbi Yose now argues his position. Had the priest thought to bring the blood of the hatat outside of the Temple, it is already invalid. Nevertheless, if one of the goblets is brought out of the Temple, the other goblet remains valid, as we learned in section one. In contrast, had he thought to bring the blood into the Sanctuary he has not rendered the sacrifice unfit. Therefore, Rabbi Yose argues, all the more so if he actually brings one of the goblets into the Sanctuary, the other one remains fit. It is interesting that the other rabbis do not respond to this argument. It seems likely that they just don’t believe that this argument works here rather, once part of the blood goes into the Sanctuary, all of the blood is rendered unfit no matter where it is.

לא עשה – regarding removing part of the blood outside that which is that what remains inside like it goes forth, as you said that the inner [sprinkling] was kosher.

If it entered within to make atonement, even if he [the priest] did not make atonement, it is unfit, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Shimon said: [it is not unfit] unless he makes atonement. Rabbi Judah said: if he took it in unwittingly, it is fit. In this section, there is a debate over whether blood that enters the sanctuary is always rendered unfit, or only under certain circumstances. According to Rabbi Eliezer, if he brought the blood into the Sanctuary in order to sprinkle it on the golden altar, then it is unfit, even if he did not end up sprinkling it. Rabbi Shimon says that it is not rendered unfit until he actually sprinkles it on the altar. Rabbi Judah is even more lenient. If he brings the blood in accidentally, it is not rendered unfit, even if he sprinkles it on the altar. It is unfit only if he intentionally brings it in and sprinkles it on the altar.

מקום שאין המחשבה פוסלת – that is to say the hall containing the golden altar which is a place where intention does not render [the rite] invalid, that if he ritually slaughtered in order to give the pieces [of the sacrifice] outside, inside it is kosher/fit, does it not follow, etc. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yossi Haglili. And especially regarding the blood in which we stated that if he went outside of the Temple courtyard or entered inside to sprinkle from it in the hall containing the golden altar, it was invalidated, but the flesh/meat of Holy Things, assuming that if he went outside [the Temple courtyard], it was invalidated and consuming it is prohibited, as it is written (Exodus 22:30): “[You shall be holy people to Me:] you must not eat flesh torn by beasts in the field; [you shall cast it to the dogs],” meat that went outside its compartment/partition , that is, the Holiest of the Holy Things outside of the Temple courtyard and the Lesser Holy Things outside of the city, it becomes as if it is flesh in the field, and it is considered “torn” and you cannot consume it. Nevertheless, if he entered inside into the midst of the hall containing the golden altar, it is not invalidated because of this and its consumption is permitted, as Scripture states (Leviticus 6:23): “[But no purification offering may be eaten] from which any blood is brought [into the Tent of Meeting for expiation in the sanctuary],” from its blood, but not from its flesh [which is permitted].

For all unfit blood which was put on the altar, the head plate [of the high priest] does not propitiate, save for the unclean, for the headplate propitiates for that which is unclean, but does not propitiate for what goes out. According to Exodus 28:38, the head plate worn by the high priest “bears the iniquity of any holy things (sacrifices).” The mishnah explains that the head plate propitiates, meaning cleanses, in a case where a sacrifice becomes impure. In such a case the sacrifice will count, even though it should not have been offered. However, it does not propitiate for a sacrifice whose blood has gone out of the Temple courtyard. If they offer such a sacrifice, it is invalid.

עד שיכפר – in the hall containing the golden altar.

ר' יהודה אומר כו' – And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehuda.

ואין הציץ מרצה על היוצא – and even though that they (i.e., the blood) went up, they did not go down, but regarding effecting acceptance however, it does not effect, as it is written regarding the frontlet (Exodus 28:38): “[It shall be on Aaron’s forehead,] that Aaron may take away any sin arising from the holy things [that the Israelites consecrate, from any of their sacred donations,]” and in the Torah portion of Emor it is written (Leviticus 22:3): “If any man among your offspring, while in a state of impurity, partakes of any sacred donation that the Israelite people may consecrate to the LORD, [that person shall be cut off from before Me],” just as the Holy Things mentioned further on, the Biblical verse speaks of their defilement, so also the sin of the Holy Things that is mentioned regarding the frontlet, the Biblical verse speaks with regard to defilement.