## Zevachim Daf 71b

###### Zevachim 71b:1
[Zevachim 71b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/71b:1)

בְּכִלְאַיִם וּבִטְרֵיפָה, בְּיוֹצֵא דּוֹפֶן – יִרְעוּ עַד שֶׁיִּסְתָּאֲבוּ, וְיִמָּכְרוּ, וְיָבִיא בִּדְמֵי הַיָּפֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן מֵאוֹתוֹ הַמִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Additional examples include an offering that was intermingled **with** an animal born of a mixture of **diverse kinds,** e.g., the offspring of a ram and a goat, **or with an animal with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [*tereifa*],** or **with** an animal **born by caesarean section.** In all these cases the animals that are intermingled **shall graze until they become unfit** for sacrifice **and** then **they shall be sold. And** from the money received in the sale, the owner **shall bring** another offering **of the monetary value of** the **highest-quality** animal **among them, of the same type** of offering that the intermingled offering was.


###### Zevachim 71b:2
[Zevachim 71b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/71b:2)

נִתְעָרְבוּ בְּחוּלִּין תְּמִימִים – יִמָּכְרוּ הַחוּלִּין לְצוֹרְכֵי אוֹתוֹ הַמִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna continues: If sacrificial animals **were intermingled with unblemished, non-sacred** animals, which, if consecrated, are fit for sacrifice, **the non-sacred** animals **shall be sold for the purpose** of purchasing offerings **of the same type** as the offering with which they were intermingled.


###### Zevachim 71b:3
[Zevachim 71b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/71b:3)

קָדָשִׁים בְּקָדָשִׁים מִין בְּמִינוֹ – זֶה יִקְרַב לְשֵׁם מִי שֶׁהוּא, וְזֶה יִקְרַב לְשֵׁם מִי שֶׁהוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In a case where **sacrificial** animals were intermingled **with** other **sacrificial** animals, if it was an animal of one **type** of offering **with** animals of the same **type** of offering, **one shall sacrifice this** animal **for the sake of whoever is** its owner **and one shall sacrifice that** animal **for the sake of whoever is** its owner, and both fulfill their obligation.


###### Zevachim 71b:4
[Zevachim 71b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/71b:4)

קָדָשִׁים בְּקָדָשִׁים מִין בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ – יִרְעוּ עַד שֶׁיִּסְתָּאֲבוּ וְיִמָּכְרוּ, וְיָבִיא בִּדְמֵי יָפֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן מִמִּין זֶה, וּבִדְמֵי הַיָּפֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן מִמִּין זֶה, וְיַפְסִיד הַמּוֹתָר מִבֵּיתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In a case where **sacrificial** animals were intermingled **with** other **sacrificial** animals, where an animal of one **type** of offering was intermingled **with** animals **not** of the same **type** of offering, e.g., two rams, where one is designated as a burnt offering and one as a peace offering, **they shall graze until they become unfit** for sacrifice **and** then **they shall be sold. And** from the money received in the sale, the owner **shall bring** another offering **of the monetary value of** the **highest-quality** animal **among them as this type** of offering, **and** another offering **of the monetary value of** the **highest-quality** animal **among them as that type** of offering, **and he will lose the additional** expense of purchasing two highest-quality animals, when he had sold only one highest-quality animal, **from his** own **assets.**


###### Zevachim 71b:5
[Zevachim 71b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/71b:5)

נִתְעָרְבוּ בִּבְכוֹר וּבְמַעֲשֵׂר – יִרְעוּ עַד שֶׁיִּסְתָּאֲבוּ, וְיֵאָכְלוּ כִּבְכוֹר וּכְמַעֲשֵׂר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In a case where sacrificial animals **were intermingled with a firstborn** offering **or with** an animal **tithe** offering, **they shall graze until they become unfit** for sacrifice **and they shall** both **be eaten as a firstborn** offering **or as** an animal **tithe** offering.


###### Zevachim 71b:6
[Zevachim 71b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/71b:6)

הַכֹּל יְכוֹלִין לְהִתְעָרֵב, חוּץ מִן הַחַטָּאת וְהָאָשָׁם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**All** offerings **can become** indistinguishably **intermingled** with each other, **except for a sin offering and a guilt offering,** as the Gemara will explain.


###### Zevachim 71b:7
[Zevachim 71b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/71b:7)

**גְּמָ׳** מַאי ״אֲפִילּוּ״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna teaches the *halakha* of all the offerings that were intermingled with animals from which deriving benefit is forbidden. This indicates that one offering became intermingled with a majority of prohibited animals, as it is usual to describe the smaller unit as being intermingled with the larger unit. The Gemara asks: If so, **what** is the meaning of the term: **Even,** in the clause: Even if the ratio is one in ten thousand, deriving benefit from them all is prohibited and they all must die. If the permitted animal is rendered prohibited by a simple majority, of course it is prohibited if the ratio is one in ten thousand.


###### Zevachim 71b:8
[Zevachim 71b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/71b:8)

הָכִי קָאָמַר: כׇּל הַזְּבָחִים שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ בָּהֶן חַטָּאוֹת הַמֵּתוֹת אוֹ שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל, אֲפִילּוּ אֶחָד בְּרִיבּוֹא – יָמוּתוּ כּוּלָּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **This** is what the mishna **is saying: All the offerings in which were intermingled sin offerings** left to **die, or** in which **an ox that** was sentenced to be **stoned** was intermingled, **even** if the ratio is **one** forbidden animal intermingled **with ten thousand** offerings, **they all must die.**


###### Zevachim 71b:9
[Zevachim 71b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/71b:9)

תְּנֵינָא חֲדָא זִימְנָא: כָּל הָאֲסוּרִין לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ אוֹסְרִין בְּכׇל שֶׁהֵן, הָרוֹבֵעַ וְהַנִּרְבָּע!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: Why is this mishna necessary? **We** already **learn** this *halakha* on **another occasion,** in a mishna (*Temura* 28a): With regard to **all** animals **whose** sacrifice **on the altar** is **prohibited,** if they are intermingled with animals whose sacrifice is permitted **they render** the entire mixture **prohibited in any amount,** regardless of the ratio of permitted to prohibited animals. The mishna adds that these are the animals whose sacrifice is prohibited: **An animal that** actively **copulated with a person, and an animal that was the object of bestiality.** That mishna proceeds to add other categories of animals to this list, including ones mentioned in the mishna here. In any event, the basic *halakha* of the mishna is also taught in tractate *Temura*.


###### Zevachim 71b:10
[Zevachim 71b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/71b:10)

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: אַמְרִיתַהּ לִשְׁמַעְתֵּיהּ קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב שִׁימִי, וְאַצְרִיכַן – דְּאִי מֵהָתָם, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי לְגָבוֹהַּ, אֲבָל לְהֶדְיוֹט אֵימָא לָא;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi says: I said this *halakha* in the presence of Rav Shimi, and he** explained to **me** that both *mishnayot* **are necessary,** as each teaches a novelty not included in the other. Rav Ashi clarifies: **As, if** this *halakha* was learned only **from there,** the mishna in *Temura*, **I would say** that **this statement,** that prohibited animals render a mixture prohibited in any ratio, applies only to prohibiting the animals from being sacrificed **to the Most High; but** with regard to prohibiting the animals even **to an ordinary** person **[*hedyot*],** e.g., that if they became intermingled with an ox that is to be stoned they all must die without the possibility of redemption, one might **say** that they are **not** all rendered prohibited in benefit, as the prohibited animal is nullified in a majority. Therefore, the mishna here teaches that even with regard to deriving benefit, all the animals in the mixture are prohibited.


###### Zevachim 71b:11
[Zevachim 71b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/71b:11)

וְאִי מֵהָכָא, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי הוּא אִיסּוּרֵי הֲנָאָה נִינְהוּ, אֲבָל הָנֵי אֵימָא לָא; צְרִיכִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Ashi continues: **And if** this *halakha* was learned only **from here, I would say** that **it is** only **these** categories that are mentioned in this mishna, i.e., sin offerings that were condemned to die or an ox that was sentenced to be stoned, that render a mixture prohibited in any ratio. The *halakha* is stringent with regard to them, as **they are items from which** deriving **benefit is prohibited. But** with regard to **these** categories mentioned in the mishna in *Temura*, e.g., an animal that copulated with a person, which are not items from which deriving benefit is prohibited, one might **say** that they are **not** disqualified from being sacrificed, and they are nullified in a majority. Therefore, both *mishnayot* **are necessary.**


###### Zevachim 71b:12
[Zevachim 71b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/71b:12)

דְּלָאו אִיסּוּרֵי הֲנָאָה נִינְהוּ – הָא תְּנָא לֵיהּ! מִי קָתָנֵי בְּכַמָּה?! ״כׇּל שֶׁהֵן״ – הָתָם קָתָנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions this explanation: This justifies the mishna here, but concerning the *halakha* stated in *Temura*, why did that mishna teach the *halakha* with regard to those animals **that are not items from which** deriving **benefit is prohibited,** such as an animal that copulated with a person; the *tanna* already **taught this** *halakha* in the mishna here. The Gemara answers: **Does** the mishna here **teach by what** ratio they render the mixture prohibited? The important measure: **In any amount, is taught there,** in *Temura*, not in the mishna here, and that is the novelty of the mishna in *Temura*.


###### Zevachim 71b:13
[Zevachim 71b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/71b:13)

וְנִיתְנֵי הָא, וְלָא בָּעֵי הָא! תַּקַּנְתָּא אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **But** if so, **let** the *tanna* **teach that** mishna in *Temura*, **and** then he would **not require this** mishna here. Why teach the second clause of the mishna here? The Gemara explains: It **was necessary for** the *tanna* to mention **the remedy,** i.e., that the animals that are intermingled shall graze until they become unfit for sacrifice and then they shall be sold; and from the money received in the sale, the owner shall bring another offering of the monetary value of the highest-quality animal among them as the same type of offering that the sacrificial animal was. This *halakha* is not stated in the mishna in *Temura*.


###### Zevachim 71b:14
[Zevachim 71b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/71b:14)

דְּהֶדְיוֹט נָמֵי תְּנָא לֵיהּ – וְאֵלּוּ אֲסוּרִין וְאוֹסְרִין בְּכׇל שֶׁהֵן: יֵין נֶסֶךְ וַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises another difficulty. The *halakha* of the mishna that items from which deriving benefit is prohibited render a mixture prohibited in any amount even **to an ordinary** person, as stated with regard to the sin offerings that were condemned to die and an ox that was sentenced to be stoned, is **also taught** in a mishna (*Avoda Zara* 74a): **And these** following items are themselves **forbidden, and any amount** of them **renders** other items with which they become mixed **forbidden: Wine** used for **a libation** that became mixed with kosher wine, **and** objects of **idol worship** that were intermingled with permitted items.