## Zevachim Daf 75a

###### Zevachim 75a:1
[Zevachim 75a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/75a:1)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: קׇרְבַּן יָחִיד שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּקׇרְבַּן יָחִיד, וְקׇרְבַּן צִיבּוּר שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּקׇרְבַּן צִיבּוּר, וְקׇרְבַּן יָחִיד וְקׇרְבַּן צִיבּוּר שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ זֶה בָּזֶה – נוֹתֵן אַרְבַּע מַתָּנוֹת מִכׇּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד. וְאִם נָתַן מַתָּנָה מִכׇּל אֶחָד – יָצָא, וְאִם נָתַן אַרְבַּע מִכּוּלָּן – יָצָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye raised an objection to** this from a *baraita* (*Tosefta* 8:22): With regard to **the offering of an individual that was intermingled with** another **offering of an individual, and** likewise **a communal offering that was intermingled with** another **communal offering, or the offering of an individual and a communal offering that were intermingled with each other,** the priest **places four placements** of blood **from each and every one** of them on the altar, and in this manner fulfills the obligation of the blood rites of all the offerings. **But if he placed** one **placement from each one,** he has **fulfilled** his obligation. **And** likewise, **if he placed four** placements **from all of them** together, he has **fulfilled** his obligation.


###### Zevachim 75a:2
[Zevachim 75a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/75a:2)

בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ חַיִּין, אֲבָל נִתְעָרְבוּ שְׁחוּטִין – נוֹתֵן אַרְבַּע מַתָּנוֹת מִכּוּלָּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **In what** case **is this statement,** that he places from the blood of each of the offerings *ab initio*, **said?** In a case **where** the offerings **were intermingled** when they were still **alive,** before they were sacrificed, and therefore the priest could perform four placements from the blood of each animal separately. **But** if **slaughtered** animals **were** then **intermingled,** i.e., their blood became mixed together in one container, the priest **places four placements from all of them** together, only one set of four.


###### Zevachim 75a:3
[Zevachim 75a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/75a:3)

וְאִם נָתַן מַתָּנָה אַחַת מִכּוּלָּן – יָצָא. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: רוֹאִין אֶת הַמַּתָּנָה; אִם יֵשׁ בָּהּ כְּדֵי לָזֶה וּכְדֵי לָזֶה – כְּשֵׁרָה, וְאִם לָאו – פְּסוּלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** in any case, **if he placed one placement from all of them,** he has **fulfilled** his obligation, as the blood of all these offerings is placed on the outer altar, and with regard to all of them one fulfills the obligation after the fact with a single placement. **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says: One assesses the** blood of the **placement** given from each animal; **if there is enough in** that blood for a placement of blood **for this** offering **and enough for that** one, it is **fit, but if not,** the offering is **disqualified.**


###### Zevachim 75a:4
[Zevachim 75a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/75a:4)

קָתָנֵי יָחִיד דּוּמְיָא דְּצִיבּוּר – מָה צִיבּוּר גַּבְרֵי, אַף יָחִיד גַּבְרֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the difficulty: This *baraita* indicates that if live offerings became intermingled, each is sacrificed for its owner, despite the fact that these offerings are owned by men and therefore require placing of the hands. It is evident that the *baraita* is referring to offerings of men, as it **teaches** the case of the offering of **an individual** adjacent to, and therefore **similar to,** the case of **a communal** offering: **Just as a communal** offering is sacrificed by **men, so too,** the offering of **an individual** that is being discussed here also belongs to **men.** This presents a difficulty to the explanation of Rav Yosef.


###### Zevachim 75a:5
[Zevachim 75a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/75a:5)

אָמַר רָבָא: וְתִסְבְּרָא הָא מְתָרַצְתָּא הִיא?! דְּקָתָנֵי: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – כְּשֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ חַיִּין, אֲבָל נִתְעָרְבוּ שְׁחוּטִין – לָא. מָה לִי חַיִּים מָה לִי שְׁחוּטִין?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava says: And can you understand** the *baraita* in this manner? Is **this** *baraita* **accurate** as it stands? There is another difficulty with the *baraita*, **as it teaches: In what** case **is this statement said?** It is said in a case **where** these offerings **were intermingled** when they were still **alive. But** if **slaughtered** animals **were intermingled** it is **not** said. This is problematic, as **what** difference is it **to me** whether the animals are **alive** or **whether** they are **slaughtered?** This is not the decisive factor, as even if the animals were slaughtered, if the blood of each is in a separate vessel the priest should perform separate placements from the blood of each.


###### Zevachim 75a:6
[Zevachim 75a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/75a:6)

אֶלָּא הָכִי קָאָמַר: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ שְׁחוּטִין כְּעֵין חַיִּים, בְּכוֹסוֹת; אֲבָל בְּבוֹלֵל – נוֹתֵן אַרְבַּע מַתָּנוֹת לְכוּלָּן. וְאִם נָתַן מַתָּנָה אַחַת לְכוּלָּן – יָצָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava continues: **Rather, this** is what the *baraita* **is saying: In what** case **is this statement said?** It is said in a case **where** these offerings **were intermingled** after they were **slaughtered,** but they were **similar to living** animals, i.e., the blood of each animal was **in** separate **cups. But** in a situation **where** the blood of these animals was **mixed** together in a single cup, the priest **places four placements** of blood **from all of them. And if he placed one placement from all of them,** he has **fulfilled** his obligation. If so, this *baraita* has no bearing on the issue of offerings that became intermingled while they were still alive, as it deals exclusively with the blood of animals that have been slaughtered.


###### Zevachim 75a:7
[Zevachim 75a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/75a:7)

רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: רוֹאִין אֶת הַמַּתָּנָה; אִם יֵשׁ בָּהּ כְּדֵי לָזֶה וּכְדֵי לָזֶה – כְּשֵׁרָה, וְאִם לָא – פְּסוּלָה. וּמִי אִית לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי הַאי סְבָרָא?! וְהָא תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי: לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The *baraita* cited teaches that **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says: One assesses the** blood of the **placement** given from each animal; **if there is enough in** that blood for a placement of blood **for this** offering **and enough for that** offering, it is **fit, but if not,** the offerings are **disqualified.** The Gemara asks: **And does Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **hold** in accordance with **this** line of **reasoning,** that there must be a minimum amount of blood placed from each offering? **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta*, *Para* 9:5) with regard to the water of purification into which water that is invalid for sprinkling fell that **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says: According to the statement of Rabbi Eliezer,**