## Zevachim Daf 75b

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

הַזָּאָה כֹּל שֶׁהִיא – מְטַהֶרֶת; הַזָּאָה אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה שִׁיעוּר; הַזָּאָה מֶחֱצָה כָּשֵׁר וּמֶחֱצָה פָּסוּל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**a sprinkling of any** amount of the water of purification on someone rendered impure by impurity imparted by a corpse **purifies** him from his ritual impurity, as **sprinkling does not require** a minimum **measure** to purify him. Likewise, **a sprinkling** of water that is **half fit and half unfit** for sprinkling serves to purify the individual. Evidently, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi maintains that no minimum amount is required for the sprinkling of the water of purification, and the same should apply to the sprinkling of blood on the altar.


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

לִדְבָרָיו דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר קָאָמַר. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: הַזָּאָה לְחוּד וּנְתִינָה לְחוּד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi **stated** his opinion **in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Eliezer,** but he himself does not agree with this opinion. **And if you wish, say** instead that **sprinkling** of water of purification **is discrete and placement** of blood on the altar **is discrete,** i.e., these are two separate *halakhot* that have no bearing on each other.


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

נִתְעָרְבוּ בִּבְכוֹר וּמַעֲשֵׂר כּוּ׳. אָמַר רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: בְּכוֹר לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי – אֵין מַאֲכִילִין לְנִדּוֹת; תְּמוּרָתוֹ מַהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: 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. This means that one may not sell them in the marketplace nor sell their meat by weight, so as not to degrade consecrated animals. **Rami bar Ḥama says:** With regard to **a firstborn** offering, **according to** the opinion of **Beit Shammai,** who hold (*Bekhorot* 33a) that even after a firstborn offering develops a blemish the priest may not eat it in a state of ritual impurity, and therefore **one may not feed** it **to menstruating women, what is** the *halakha* with regard to **its substitute?** That is, if the owner of a firstborn animal stated with regard to a non-sacred animal in his possession: This animal is a substitute for the firstborn offering, is a menstruating woman permitted to eat that substitute after it develops a blemish?


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

בְּכוֹר אֵינוֹ נִפְדֶּה; תְּמוּרָתוֹ מַהוּ? בְּכוֹר אֵינוֹ נִשְׁקָל בְּלִיטְרָא; תְּמוּרָתוֹ מַהוּ? אָמַר רָבָא, תַּנְיָא: בְּכוֹר וּמַעֲשֵׂר מִשֶּׁהוּמְמוּ – עוֹשִׂין תְּמוּרָה, וּתְמוּרָתָן כְּיוֹצֵא בָּהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rami bar Ḥama further asks: **A firstborn** offering itself **may not be redeemed,** even after it develops a blemish, but **what is** the *halakha* with regard to redeeming **its substitute?** He likewise inquired: **A firstborn** offering itself, even after it develops a blemish, **may not be weighed** and sold **by the *litra*,** in the manner that non-sacred meat is sold. **What is** the *halakha* of **its substitute** in this regard? **Rava says** that an answer to these questions **is taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to **a firstborn** offering **or** an animal **tithe** offering, **from when they develop a blemish they** can be used to **render** another animal **a substitute, and their substitute** has the same status **as them.** Their substitutes have the same *halakhot* as they do.


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

בָּעֵי רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: הִתְפִּיס בְּכוֹר לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת, מַהוּ שֶׁיִּשְׁקוֹל בְּלִיטְרָא? רַוְוחָא דְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ עֲדִיף, אוֹ דִלְמָא זִילוּתָא דִּבְכוֹר עָדִיף?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rami bar Ḥama raises a dilemma:** If the priest who received a firstborn offering **dedicated** the **firstborn** offering **to the Temple maintenance,** i.e., he vowed to give the value of the firstborn offering to the Temple, **what is** the *halakha* with regard to the matter **that he may weigh** its meat **by the *litra*?** The Gemara explains the dilemma: In this case, is consideration of **the profit of the Temple** treasury **preferable, or perhaps** avoidance of the **demeaning of the firstborn** offering is **preferable.** If the profit of the Temple treasury is preferable, the firstborn offering should be weighed in the normal manner so as to increase its price; a buyer will pay more for meat he is able to resell afterward by exact weight. If avoidance of demeaning the firstborn offering is preferable, it should not be weighed by the *litra*, even though a loss to the Temple would result.


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

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר זְבִידָא, תָּא שְׁמַע: נִתְעָרְבוּ בִּבְכוֹר וּבְמַעֲשֵׂר – יִרְעוּ עַד שֶׁיִּסְתָּאֲבוּ, וְיֵאָכְלוּ כִּבְכוֹר וּכְמַעֲשֵׂר. לָאו לְמֵימְרָא דְּאֵינוֹ נִשְׁקָל בְּלִיטְרָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yosei bar Zevida says: Come** and **hear** a proof from the ruling of the mishna: 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. Is this **not** meaning **to say that** the sacrificial animal that became intermingled with a firstborn offering **is** also **not weighed by the *litra*,** despite the fact that this causes a slight loss to the Temple?


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

רַב הוּנָא וְרַבִּי חִזְקִיָּה תַּלְמִידֵי רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמְרִי: מִי דָּמֵי?! הָתָם שְׁתֵּי קְדוּשּׁוֹת וּשְׁנֵי גּוּפִין, הָכָא שְׁתֵּי קְדוּשּׁוֹת וְגוּף אֶחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Huna and Rabbi Ḥizkiyya,** the **students of Rabbi Yirmeya, say: Are** these cases **comparable? There,** the mishna is referring to **two** separate **sanctities,** the sanctity of a firstborn offering and that of another offering, **and two** separate **bodies,** i.e., two different animals, and in such a case one may not degrade the sanctity of the firstborn due to the other animal with which it is intermingled. Conversely, **here,** with regard to one who vows to give the value of a firstborn to the Temple, there are **two sanctities,** a firstborn offering and the Temple maintenance, **but** they are both found in **one body.** In this case, as the sanctity of the Temple maintenance itself is in the firstborn offering, it may be weighed by the *litra*, because of the profit the Temple will gain.


###### Zevachim 75b:8
[Zevachim 75b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/75b:8)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר אָבִין, מָה אִילּוּ אָמַר: ״הַפְדּוּ לִי בְּכוֹר שֶׁהִתְפִּיסוֹ לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת״ – כְּלוּם שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ?! ״הַפְדּוּ״?! רַחֲמָנָא אָמַר: ״לֹא תִפְדֶּה״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosei bar Avin objects to this: What** would be the *halakha* **if one says: Redeem for me,** i.e., I wish to redeem, **a firstborn** offering **that he** had previously **dedicated** as the object of his vow **to the Temple maintenance? Does** the court **listen to him?** His request is certainly not granted, as by Torah law a firstborn offering may not be redeemed. Similarly, the fact that he dedicated the value of the firstborn offering to the Temple should not negate the prohibition of weighing it by the *litra*. The Gemara questions this comparison: One cannot raise a difficulty from a case where someone says: **Redeem** the firstborn offering for me, as **the Merciful One states** with regard to a firstborn offering: “But the firstborn of a bull, or the firstborn of a sheep, or the firstborn of a goat, **you shall not redeem;** they are sacred” (Numbers 18:17). But the weighing of the offering by the *litra* is not prohibited by Torah law.


###### Zevachim 75b:9
[Zevachim 75b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/75b:9)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי: כְּלוּם הִקְנָה זֶה – אֶלָּא מַה (שקנו) [שֶּׁקָּנוּי] לוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the Gemara suggests a different resolution of Rami bar Ḥama’s dilemma: **Rabbi Ami says: Can this** priest **transfer** to the Temple maintenance anything **other than that which was transferred to him?** In other words, just as the priest who took the vow may not weigh the firstborn by the *litra* and gain a profit, the same applies to the Temple treasury, the recipient of his vow.


###### Zevachim 75b:10
[Zevachim 75b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/75b:10)

הַכֹּל יְכוֹלִין לְהִתְעָרֵב כּוּ׳. מַאי שְׁנָא חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם – דְּהַאי זָכָר וְהַאי נְקֵבָה;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: All offerings **can become** indistinguishably **intermingled** with each other, except for a sin offering and a guilt offering. The Gemara asks: **What is different** about **a sin offering and a guilt offering,** that they cannot become intermingled? Is the reason **that this,** a guilt offering, is always **a male, and that,** a sin offering, is always **a female?**


###### Zevachim 75b:11
[Zevachim 75b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/75b:11)

חַטָּאת וְעוֹלָה נָמֵי! אִיכָּא שְׂעִיר נָשִׂיא; הַאי שֵׂיעָר וְהַאי צֶמֶר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions this explanation: **A sin offering and a burnt offering** are **also** like this, as a sin offering is always female while a burnt offering is always male. The Gemara answers that although the standard sin offering is always female, **there is** the **goat** of the ***Nasi*,** which is a male sin offering, and therefore it can become intermingled with a male goat burnt offering. And as to the statement of the mishna that a sin offering cannot become intermingled with a guilt offering despite the male sin offering of the *Nasi*, that is because **this** goat has straight **hair and that** guilt offering comes only from sheep or rams, which have **wool,** and the wool is curly.


###### Zevachim 75b:12
[Zevachim 75b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/75b:12)

פֶּסַח וְאָשָׁם נָמֵי לָא מִיעָרַב – הַאי בֶּן שָׁנָה וְהַאי בֶּן שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים! אִיכָּא אֲשַׁם נָזִיר וַאֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: אִיכָּא בֶּן שָׁנָה דְּמִיחֲזֵי כְּבֶן שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים, וְאִיכָּא בֶּן שְׁתַּיִם דְּמִיחֲזֵי כְּבֶן שָׁנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **A Paschal offering and a guilt offering also cannot become intermingled,** as **this** Paschal offering is **in its first year, and that** guilt offering is **in its second year.** The Gemara answers that **there is the guilt offering of a nazirite and the guilt offering of a leper,** which must be in their first year. **And if you wish, say** instead that an animal in its first year can become intermingled with an animal in its second year, as **there is** an animal **in its first year that looks like** an animal **in its second year, and** likewise **there is** an animal **in its second year that looks like** an animal **in its first year.**


###### Zevachim 75b:13
[Zevachim 75b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/75b:13)

**מַתְנִי׳** אָשָׁם שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בִּשְׁלָמִים – רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: שְׁנֵיהֶם יִשָּׁחֲטוּ בַּצָּפוֹן, וְיֵאָכְלוּ כֶּחָמוּר שֶׁבָּהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** In the case of **a guilt offering that was intermingled with a peace offering, Rabbi Shimon says: Both of them should be slaughtered in the north** of the Temple courtyard, as a guilt offering must be slaughtered in the north while a peace offering may be slaughtered anywhere in the courtyard. **And** they both **must be eaten in accordance with** the *halakha* of **the** more **stringent of them,** i.e., the guilt offering, with the following *halakhot*: They may be eaten only in the courtyard rather than throughout Jerusalem; by male priests and not by any ritually pure Jew; and on the day they were sacrificed and the following night, and not on the day they were sacrificed, the following day, and the intervening night.


###### Zevachim 75b:14
[Zevachim 75b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/75b:14)

אָמְרוּ לוֹ: אֵין מְבִיאִין קָדָשִׁים לְבֵית הַפְּסוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Rabbis **said to** Rabbi Shimon: One may not limit the time of the consumption of an offering, as **one may not bring sacrificial** animals **to the status of unfitness.** According to Rabbi Shimon’s opinion, the peace offering becomes leftover, *notar*, the morning after it is sacrificed, and not at the end of that day, as is the *halakha* concerning peace offerings. Rather, the Rabbis hold, the owner shall wait until these animals become blemished, redeem them, and bring an offering of each type that is worth the monetary value of the higher-quality animal among them.


###### Zevachim 75b:15
[Zevachim 75b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/75b:15)

נִתְעָרְבוּ חֲתִיכוֹת בַּחֲתִיכוֹת – קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים בְּקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים, הַנֶּאֱכָלִין לְיוֹם אֶחָד בְּנֶאֱכָלִין לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים וְלַיְלָה – יֵאָכְלוּ כֶּחָמוּר שֶׁבָּהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna adds: Even according to the opinion of the Rabbis, if **pieces** of the meat of one offering **were intermingled with pieces** of the meat of another offering, e.g., meat from **offerings of the most sacred order with** meat from **offerings of lesser sanctity;** or if pieces of meat from offerings **eaten for one day** and the following night were intermingled **with** pieces of meat from offerings **eaten for two days and** one **night,** since in that case the remedy with regard to offerings that were intermingled cannot be implemented, they both **must be eaten in accordance with** the *halakha* of **the** more **stringent of them.**


###### Zevachim 75b:16
[Zevachim 75b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/75b:16)

**גְּמָ׳** תָּנֵי תַּנָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב: שְׁבִיעִית אֵין לוֹקְחִין בְּדָמֶיהָ תְּרוּמָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּמַעֲטִין בַּאֲכִילָתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** In connection to the principle cited by the Rabbis in the mishna that one may not bring consecrated animals to the status of unfitness, **a *tanna* taught** a *baraita* (*Tosefta*, *Shevi’it* 6:29) **before Rav:** With regard to produce of the **Sabbatical** Year, **one may not purchase** produce of ***teruma*** from a previous year **with its money,** i.e., money received in its sale, **because** one thereby **reduces the** time of **eating** the *teruma*. The produce of the Sabbatical Year may be eaten only until the time of the removal of that type of produce from the field, whereas *teruma* may be consumed at any time.


###### Zevachim 75b:17
[Zevachim 75b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/75b:17)

אַמְרוּהָ רַבָּנַן קַמֵּיהּ (דְּרָבָא) [דְּרַבָּה]: הָא דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן; דְּאִי כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, הָאָמַר: מְבִיאִין קָדָשִׁים לְבֵית הַפְּסוּל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages said** this *baraita* **before Rabba,** and they explained that **this** *baraita* is **not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon** in the mishna. Their reasoning was **that if** you would say it is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon, doesn’t he say,** as can be inferred from the mishna, that **one may bring sacrificial** animals **to the status of unfitness?** Similarly, one can limit the time allowed for the consumption of the Sabbatical Year produce.


###### Zevachim 75b:18
[Zevachim 75b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/75b:18)

אֲמַר לְהוּ: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימְרוּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן – הָנֵי מִילֵּי דְּאִיעֲבַד, לְכִתְחִילָּה לָא. וּלְכִתְחִילָּה לָא?! אֵיתִיבֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabba **said to them: You** may **even say** that the *baraita* is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon. That statement,** that one may bring sacrificial animals to the status of unfitness, applies only in a case that is **after the fact,** as in the mishna, where offerings became intermingled. Rabbi Shimon did **not** permit one to bring sacrificial animals to the status of unfitness ***ab initio*.** The Gemara asks: **And** does Rabbi Shimon **not** permit one to bring sacrificial animals to the status of unfitness ***ab initio*? Abaye raised an objection to** Rabba from a mishna that discusses the manner of eating the meat of offerings (Zevachim 90b):