## Zevachim Daf 81a

###### Zevachim 81a:1
[Zevachim 81a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/81a:1)

וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכָא נָמֵי בְּנִתְעָרֵב בְּאַחַת; אִי הָכִי, אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: הֲרֵי הוּא עוֹבֵר עַל בַּל תּוֹסִיף – הָכָא בַּל תּוֹסִיף מֵהֵיכָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say** that **here too,** the mishna is discussing a case **where** the measure of four placements **was mixed with** precisely the amount of **one** placement, and therefore the priest certainly placed some blood of both offerings, **if so,** how would one explain the clause in the mishna that states: **Rabbi Yehoshua said to** Rabbi Eliezer: According to your opinion, doesn’t the priest **violate** the prohibition of: **Do not add? From where** is the violation of: **Do not add, here?** After all, the priest places only the measure of one placement from the offering that requires one placement.


###### Zevachim 81a:2
[Zevachim 81a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/81a:2)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: בְּבָלוּל לָא פְּלִיגִי, כִּי פְּלִיגִי – בְּכוֹסוֹת; לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אִית לֵיהּ רוֹאִין, לְרַבָּנַן לֵית לְהוּ רוֹאִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rava says:** Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis **do not disagree with regard to** a case of actual blood **mixed** together. **When they disagree** it is **with regard to** a case of **cups** of blood that were intermingled, and it is unknown which blood is in which cup. The explanation **according to Rabbi Eliezer** is that he **is of** the opinion that **one views** the blood that was not placed properly as though it were water, and therefore it is permitted to present the blood; whereas the explanation **according to the Rabbis** is that they **are not of** the opinion that **one views** the blood that was not placed properly as though it were water, and consequently all of it must be poured into the Temple courtyard drain.


###### Zevachim 81a:3
[Zevachim 81a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/81a:3)

וּבְבָלוּל לָא פְּלִיגִי?! וְהָתַנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וַחֲכָמִים עַל דַּם חַטָּאת שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּדַם עוֹלָה – שֶׁיִּקְרַב, בְּרוֹבֵעַ וְנִרְבָּע – שֶׁלֹּא יִקְרַב. עַל מָה נֶחְלְקוּ? עַל דַּם תְּמִימָה שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּדַם בַּעֲלַת מוּם – שֶׁרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: יִקְרַב, בֵּין בְּבָלוּל בֵּין בְּכוֹסוֹת; וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: לֹא יִקְרַב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And do they not disagree with regard to** blood **mixed** together? **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Yehuda said: Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis did not disagree** in a case **of blood of a sin offering that was mixed with blood of a burnt offering that** the mixture **shall be sacrificed,** or **in** a case of blood that was fit for presentation that was mixed with the blood of **an animal that copulated with a person, or an animal that was the object of bestiality, that it shall not be sacrificed.** The *baraita* continues: **With regard to what** case **did they disagree? With regard to blood of an unblemished** animal **that was mixed with blood of a blemished** animal, **as Rabbi Eliezer says** that it **shall be sacrificed, whether in** a case of blood **mixed** together **or in** a case of **cups** intermingled, **and the Rabbis say** it **shall not be sacrificed.**


###### Zevachim 81a:4
[Zevachim 81a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/81a:4)

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מַתְנֵי בֵּין בְּבָלוּל בֵּין בְּכוֹסוֹת, וְרַבָּנַן בְּכוֹסוֹת פְּלִיגִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rabbi Yehuda, in accordance with** the opinion **of Rabbi Eliezer,** i.e., when Rabbi Yehuda teaches the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, **teaches** that the dispute applies **both in** a case of blood **mixed** together **and in** a case of intermingled **cups, but the Rabbis** who taught the mishna maintain that Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis **disagree** only **in** a case of intermingled **cups.**


###### Zevachim 81a:5
[Zevachim 81a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/81a:5)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא תְּחִלַּת חַטָּאת וְעוֹלָה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that if the blood of a sin offering, which is to be placed above the red line, was mixed with blood of a burnt offering, which is to be placed below the line, Rabbi Eliezer holds that it shall all be placed above the red line, and one views the blood of the burnt offering placed there as though it is water, and subsequently the priest shall place the blood below the red line. By contrast, the Rabbis rule that all the blood shall be poured into the Temple courtyard drain. Concerning this, **Abaye says:** The mishna **taught** that according to the opinion of the Rabbis the blood shall be poured into the drain **only** if the **first** portion of the blood **of a sin offering,** i.e., that blood which is to be placed above the red line, **and** the blood of **a burnt offering** were mixed.


###### Zevachim 81a:6
[Zevachim 81a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/81a:6)

אֲבָל סוֹף חַטָּאת [וְעוֹלָה] – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מְקוֹם עוֹלָה מְקוֹם שִׁירַיִים. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף, הָכִי אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: שִׁירַיִם צְרִיכִין אִיצְטְבָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But** if the **final** portion of the blood **of a sin offering,** i.e., the remainder of the blood that is poured onto the base of the altar (see Leviticus 4:25), **and** the blood of **a burnt offering** were mixed, **everyone agrees** that since **the place** of the blood **of a burnt offering,** below the red line, is the same as **the place of** the **remainder** of the blood of a sin offering, as the remainder of the blood of a sin offering is poured on the base of the altar, the priest shall place all the blood on the side of the altar below the red line. **Rav Yosef said to** Abaye: **This is what Rav Yehuda says:** The places are not the same, as the **remainder** of blood **needs** to be placed on the **bench,** i.e., on the upper horizontal surface of the base itself, and not on the side of the altar as is the case with the blood of a burnt offering.


###### Zevachim 81a:7
[Zevachim 81a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/81a:7)

וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא תְּחִלַּת חַטָּאת וְעוֹלָה, אֲבָל סוֹף חַטָּאת וְעוֹלָה – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מְקוֹם עוֹלָה מְקוֹם שִׁירַיִם. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: עֲדַיִין הִיא מַחְלוֹקֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes that *amora’im* of Eretz Yisrael disagreed in the same manner as Abaye and Rav Yosef: **And likewise Rabbi Shimon** ben Lakish **says:** The mishna **taught** that according to the opinion of the Rabbis the blood shall be poured into the drain **only** if the **first** portion of the blood **of a sin offering and** the blood of **a burnt offering** were mixed. **But** if the **final** portion of the blood **of a sin offering and** the blood of **a burnt offering** were mixed, **everyone agrees** that since **the place** of the blood **of a burnt offering** is the same as **the place of** the **remainder** of the blood of a sin offering, the priest shall place all the blood on the side of the altar below the red line. **Rabbi Yoḥanan says, and some say** it was **Rabbi Elazar** who says: This case of the remainder of blood of a sin offering that was mixed with the blood of a burnt offering **is still** included in the **dispute** between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis.


###### Zevachim 81a:8
[Zevachim 81a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/81a:8)

מֵתִיב רַב הוּנָא בַּר יְהוּדָה: ״קֹדֶשׁ הֵם״ – שֶׁאִם נִתְעָרֵב בְּדַם קָדָשִׁים אֲחֵרִים, יִקְרְבוּ. מַאי, לָאו סוֹף עוֹלָה וּבְכוֹר – וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ מְקוֹם עוֹלָה מְקוֹם שִׁירַיִם? לָא; תְּחִילַּת עוֹלָה וּבְכוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Huna bar Yehuda raises an objection** from a *baraita*: The verse states with regard to firstborn animals: **“They are holy”** (Numbers 18:17). The emphasis of the term “they” serves to teach **that** even **if** the blood of a firstborn offering **was mixed with blood of other sacrificial** animals, the blood **shall be sacrificed,** as the blood of firstborn offerings is not nullified. **What, is it not** referring even to a case of the **final** portion of the blood **of a burnt offering and** the blood of **a firstborn** offering that were mixed, indicating that the priest places the mixture below the red line? **And** if so, one can **learn from** this *baraita* that **the place** of the blood **of a burnt offering,** which is also the place of the blood of a firstborn offering, is the same as **the place of** the **remainder** of blood of a sin offering. The Gemara answers: **No,** the *baraita* is referring to the **first** part of the blood **of a burnt offering and** the blood of **a firstborn** offering.


###### Zevachim 81a:9
[Zevachim 81a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/81a:9)

וּמַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, דְּאֵין עוֹלִין מְבַטְּלִים זֶה אֶת זֶה? הַאי מִ״וְּלָקַח מִדַּם הַפָּר וּמִדַּם הַשָּׂעִיר״ נָפְקָא! תַּנָּאֵי הִיא; אִיכָּא דְּנָפְקָא לֵיהּ מֵהָכָא, וְאִיכָּא דְּנָפְקָא לֵיהּ מֵהָכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **But** if so, **what is** this *baraita* **teaching us?** Is it teaching that the blood of offerings **that ascend** to the altar **do not nullify one another? This** *halakha* **is** already **derived from** the verse: **“And he shall take of the blood of the bull and of the blood of the goat”** (Leviticus 16:18), from which it is understood that although the blood of the two animals is in the same vessel, they each retain their distinct identity. The Gemara answers: This **is** a dispute between ***tanna’im*,** as **there is** a *tanna* **who derives** this *halakha* **from here, and there is** a *tanna* **who derives it from there.**


###### Zevachim 81a:10
[Zevachim 81a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/81a:10)

מֵתִיב רָבָא: ״וְהִקְרִיבוּ בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן אֶת הַדָּם וְזָרְקוּ אֶת הַדָּם״ – מָה

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava raises an objection** from a *baraita* that discusses a verse describing a burnt offering: **“And Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall present the blood and sprinkle the blood”** (Leviticus 1:5). The superfluous second mention of the blood teaches that it is still called the blood of a burnt offering even after it was mixed with other blood, and therefore it should be sprinkled in its proper manner. **What** does it mean when