Moreover, it was explicitly taught: If [blood] which is applied above was mixed with [blood] that is applied below, R. Eliezer said: He must sprinkle [it] above, and the lower [blood] acquits him. (1) But if you say that there is no even distribution, why does it acquit him? perhaps he sprinkled the upper [blood] below and the lower [blood] above? — The case we discuss here is where we have an excess of upper [blood], and he sprinkles above the quantity of the lower [blood] plus a little more. (2) But he teaches that the lower [blood] acquits him? (3) — [It counts] as the residue. (4) Come and hear: If he [the priest] sprinkled [it] (5) without asking. (6) R. Eliezer said: He must re-sprinkle above, and the lower [blood] acquits him? (7) — Here too the excess was upper [blood], and he sprinkles above the quantity of the lower blood plus a little more. But he teaches that the lower [blood] acquits him? — [It counts] as the residue. Come and hear: If he sprinkled it above without asking, (8) both (9) agree that he must resprinkle below, and both [sprinklings] are credited to him! (10) — Here too the excess was upper [blood], and he sprinkles above the quantity of the lower blood plus a little more. Yet surely he teaches: Both [sprinklings] are credited to him? — Does he then teach, ‘Both agree [in this]’? Surely he teaches, ‘Both are credited to him’, this final clause thus agreeing with the Rabbis [only], who maintain that there is even distribution. Come and hear: IF [BLOOD] WHICH REQUIRES ONE APPLICATION [WAS MIXED] WITH BLOOD [ALSO] REQUIRING ONE APPLICATION, IT [THE MIXTURE] SHOULD BE PRESENTED WITH ONE APPLICATION. Now, if you say that there is no even distribution, why should it be presented with one application? perhaps he sprinkles [the blood] of one [sacrifice] but not that of the other? (11) — It means, e.g., where one [minimum quantity] was mixed with another [minimum quantity]. (12) [BLOOD] WHICH REQUIRES FOUR APPLICATIONS WITH [BLOOD] THAT REQUIRES FOUR APPLICATIONS? (13) There too it means that [the quantity for] four [applications] was mixed with [the quantity for] four [applications]. (14) [BLOOD] WHICH REQUIRES FOUR APPLICATIONS WITH [BLOOD] REQUIRING ONE APPLICATION? (13)

---

(1). ↑ When he pours out the residue at the base of the altar, it counts as sprinkling for the burntoffering.
(2). ↑ So that some of the upper blood must be properly sprinkled above.
(3). ↑ Whereas all the lower blood was perhaps sprinkled above: how then can the burnt-offering be made fit thereby?
(4). ↑ Of the sin-offering, which must be poured out at the base. The burnt-offering, however, does not become fit.
(5). ↑ Sc. the mixed blood.
(6). ↑ For had he asked, R. Eliezer holds that he would be bidden to sprinkle above first; v. infra 89a.
(7). ↑ Here too it is assumed that both sacrifices are thereby made fit.
(8). ↑ For had he asked, the Rabbis hold that he would be bidden to pour it out into the duct.
(9). ↑ The Rabbis and R. Eliezer.
(10). ↑ Thus both sacrifices are fit.
(11). ↑ And this does agree with R. Eliezer, since the next clause contains a controversy of R. Eliezer and the Rabbis.
(12). ↑ Sc. the minimum quantity for sprinkling (one application). When the Mishnah teaches that he must make one application it means one application on account of each separately.
(13). ↑ The same difficulty arises there too.
(14). ↑ Here too he must make four applications on behalf of each sacrifice.