Zevachim

sprinkling, no matter how little, cleanses; sprinkling does not require a definite standard; sprinkling [is valid even if the mixture is] half fit and half unfit?1 — He states [the law] according to R. Eliezer.2 Alternatively, sprinkling [upon a person] is one thing, while a [blood] application is another.3 IF THEY WERE MIXED UP WITH A FIRSTLING OR TITHE etc. Rami b. Hama said: According to Beth Shammai, a firstling may not be given as food to menstruant women;4 what about its substitute?5 A firstling cannot be redeemed;6 what about its substitute? A firstling cannot be weighed by the pound;7 what about its substitute? — Said Raba: It was taught: A firstling and tithe, [even] when they became blemished, effect substitution.8 and their substitute is like themselves.9 Rami b. Hama asked: If one dedicated a [blemished] firstling for the Temple repair,10 can it be weighed by the pound?11 Is the profit of hekdesh12 of greater consideration, or is the degradation of the firstling13 of greater consideration? — Said R. Jose b. Zebida, Come and hear: 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. Surely that means that they are not weighed by the pound?14 — R. Huna and R. Hezekiah, disciples of R. Jeremiah, said: How compare? There you have two sanctities and two bodies,15 but here you have two sanctities16 and one body.17 To this R. Jose b. Abin demurred:18 What if he said, ‘Redeem me a firstling’19 which he had devoted to Temple repair: Would we heed him?20 — [If he says,] ‘Redeem’ — [surely] the Divine Law said that it must not be redeemed!21 — Rather said R. Ammi: Did he transmit ought save what he possessed?22 ALL [SACRIFICES] CAN BE MIXED UP etc. Why are a sin-offering and a guilt-offering different; [presumably] because one is a male and the other is a female? Then the same applies to a sin-offering and a burnt-offering? — There is the ruler's he-goat.23 In the case of a guilt-offering too, there is the ruler's he-goat? — One has hair and the other has wool.24 A Passover-offering and a guilt-offering too cannot be mixed up, for the former is a year old, while the latter is two years old? — There are the nazirite's guilt-offering and the leper's guilt-offering.25 Alternatively, sometimes a year old looks like a two-year old, and sometimes a two-year old looks like a year old. MISHNAH. IF A GUILT-OFFERING WAS MIXED UP WITH A PEACE-OFFERING, R. SIMEON SAID: THEY MUST BE SLAUGHTERED AT THE NORTH [SIDE OF THE ALTAR]26 AND EATEN IN ACCORDANCE WITH [THE LAWS OF] THE MORE STRINGENT OF THEM.27 SAID THEY TO HIM: ONE MUST NOT BRING SACRIFICES TO THE PLACE OF UNFITNESS.28 IF PIECES [OF FLESH] WERE MIXED UP WITH PIECES [OF 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.29 GEMARA. A Tanna recited before Rab: You must not purchase terumah with the money of seventh-year produce, because you diminish the time allowed for its consumption.30 The Rabbis stated in Rabbah's31 presence: This does not agree with R. Simeon, for if it agreed with R. Simeon, surely he maintained: One may bring sacrifices32 to the place of unfitness. Said he to them: You may say that it agrees even with R. Simeon: That33 is only when it was done,34 but not at the very outset.35 ‘But not at the outset’? Abaye raised an objection to him: same applies to the sprinkling of the blood of a sacrifice, which proves that such does not require a definite quantity at all, and so contradicts Rabbi's present statement. about menstruant women apply? the Temple repair will benefit more. is normally forbidden. When other sacrifices become unfit and are redeemed, they are sold by weight in the public market, thereby fetching a higher price, because the money obtained, which is the redemption money, is used for hekdesh; this is not permitted in the case of a firstling, because the money goes to the priest. Here, however, that he dedicated it to hekdesh, it may be the same as other sacrifices. On the other hand, in the former instance the money is used for buying other animals for sacrifices, whereas here it is used for Temple repair only. on account of the firstling. This proves that the degradation of tithe is of greater consideration. not degrade the latter in order to obtain a higher price for the former. is only Rabbinical and therefore it may possibly be waived (Rashi). cannot empower the Temple repair fund to do so. Temple court, supra 54b, 55a. For a peace-offering v. supra 55a. of unfitness, as is necessary in R. Simeon's ruling. Hence they must be left to graze until blemished. if it had not been purchased with the money of seventh-year produce it could always be eaten. (The terumah itself was not of seventh-year produce, the latter being exempt from terumah or tithe.)