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 hekdesh (12) of greater consideration, or is the degradation of the firstling (13) 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 sanctities (16) 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 guiltoffering different; [presumably] because one is a male and the other is a female? Then the same applies to a sin-offering and a burntoffering? — 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 guiltoffering 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's (31) presence: This does not agree with R. Simeon, for if it agreed with R. Simeon, surely he maintained: One may bring sacrifices (32) to the place of unfitness. Said he to them: You may say that it agrees even with R. Simeon: That (33) 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:

---

(1). ↑ V. infra 80a. This refers to the besprinkling of a man defiled through contact with the dead. It is assumed that the 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.
(2). ↑ But does not accept it himself.
(3). ↑ The same law does not apply to both.
(4). ↑ Bek. 33a.
(5). ↑ If another animal was proposed as its substitute, whereupon both receive the sanctity of a firstling: does the same law about menstruant women apply?
(6). ↑ So as to become hullin, while the redemptionmoney becomes sacred.
(7). ↑ When the priest sells it.
(8). ↑ In the sense that the substitute too is holy.
(9). ↑ Subject to the same laws.
(10). ↑ Lit., ‘if one caused a firstling to be seized (with sanctity).’ On ‘Temple repair’ v. p. 74. n. 7.
(11). ↑ Can it be sold by weight, or only by general computation? In the former case a higher price will be obtained, so that the Temple repair will benefit more.
(12). ↑ V. Glos.
(13). ↑ It is considered a degradation for a firstling to be treated exactly like hullin and sold by weight, for which reason it 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.
(14). ↑ When they are redeemed. Thus even the other sacrifices, which normally would be sold by the pound, are restricted on account of the firstling. This proves that the degradation of tithe is of greater consideration.
(15). ↑ The sacrifice and the firstling are two separate animals (bodies) and possess different sanctities; therefore you may not degrade the latter in order to obtain a higher price for the former.
(16). ↑ Viz., that of a firstling and that of Temple repair.
(17). ↑ Since the profit arises in the same body, it is possibly permitted, though the profit is utilized for a different purpose.
(18). ↑ What question is there at all: how can you think that we permit its degradation because it was dedicated?
(19). ↑ That it might become altogether hullin, to permit its shearing or being put to the plow, etc.
(20). ↑ Surely not, though the Temple repair would profit thereby.
(21). ↑ That is forbidden by Biblical law, which obviously cannot be transgressed. But the prohibition of selling by weight is only Rabbinical and therefore it may possibly be waived (Rashi).
(22). ↑ A man can only give over what he possesses himself. Since the priest could not sell it by weight for his own use, he cannot empower the Temple repair fund to do so.
(23). ↑ V. Lev. IV, 22f.
(24). ↑ The guilt-offering is a male ram, which has wool. Hence it cannot be mixed up with a he-goat.
(25). ↑ Which are likewise a year old.
(26). ↑ The side prescribed for the slaughtering of a guilt-offering. Peace-offerings could be slaughtered on any side of the Temple court, supra 54b, 55a.
(27). ↑ I.e., as guilt-offerings, viz., during one day and one night only, within the Temple precincts, and by male priests. For a peace-offering v. supra 55a.
(28). ↑ For one of the sacrifices is a peace-offering, and is fit on the second day; we cannot therefore consign it to the place of unfitness, as is necessary in R. Simeon's ruling. Hence they must be left to graze until blemished.
(29). ↑ Here the Rabbis agree, as there is no alternative.
(30). ↑ In the seventh year, when nothing is left for the beasts in the field, this terumah will have to be destroyed, whereas 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.)
(31). ↑ Marginal emendation. Cur. edd. Raba's.
(32). ↑ Or, holy food in general which includes terumah.
(33). ↑ Sc. R. Simeon's ruling.
(34). ↑ As in the Mishnah: Since the animals were mixed up, there is no alternative.
(35). ↑ There is no need to purchase terumah at the outset, when it will have that effect.