[IF BLOOD] WHICH REQUIRES ONE APPLICATION [WAS MIXED] WITH BLOOD [ALSO] REQUIRING ONE APPLICATION, (1) IT [THE MIXTURE] SHOULD BE PRESENTED WITH ONE APPLICATION. [IF BLOOD] WHICH REQUIRES FOUR APPLICATIONS [WAS MIXED] WITH BLOOD REQUIRING FOUR APPLICATIONS, (2) THEY MUST BE PRESENTED WITH FOUR APPLICATIONS. [BLOOD] WHICH REQUIRES FOUR APPLICATIONS WITH THAT WHICH REQUIRES ONE APPLICATION, R. ELIEZER SAID: IT [THE MIXTURE] MUST BE PRESENTED WITH FOUR APPLICATIONS. (3) R. JOSHUA MAINTAINED: IT MUST BE PRESENTED WITH ONE APPLICATION. (4) SAID R. ELIEZER TO HIM: BUT LO, HE TRANSGRESSES THE [INJUNCTION] NOT TO DIMINISH [FROM GOD'S COMMANDMENT]! LO, HE TRANSGRESSES THE INJUNCTION NOT TO ADD [THERETO], R. JOSHUA COUNTERED. (5) THE INJUNCTION NOT TO ADD APPLIES ONLY WHERE IT IS BY ITSELF, REPLIED R. ELIEZER. THE INJUNCTION NOT TO DIMINISH APPLIES ONLY WHERE IT IS BY ITSELF, R. JOSHUA ANSWERED. MOREOVER, SAID R. JOSHUA, WHEN YOU MAKE [FOUR] APPLICATIONS YOU TRANSGRESS THE INJUNCTION NOT TO ADD, AND COMMIT A POSITIVE ACTION WITH YOUR OWN HANDS; WHEREAS WHEN YOU DO NOT MAKE [FOUR] APPLICATIONS YOU TRANSGRESS THE INJUNCTION NOT TO DIMINISH, BUT DO NOT COMMIT A POSITIVE ACTION WITH YOUR OWN HANDS. GEMARA. R. Eleazar said: R. Eliezer declared them fit only in twos, but not singly. (6) R. Dimi raised an objection: BUT THE SAGES MAINTAIN: EVEN IF THEY OFFERED ALL OF THEM SAVE ONE, IT MUST BE POURED OUT INTO THE DUCT. (7) Said R. Jacob to R. Jeremiah b. Tahlifa: I will explain it to you: What does ONE mean? One pair. Now, both are necessary. (8) For if it were stated in the former case, I would argue that only there does R. Eliezer rule thus, because his atonement was already made therewith, (9) but in the present instance he agrees with the Rabbis. While if it were stated in the present case, I would argue that only here do the Rabbis rule thus, but in the former instance they agree with R. Eliezer. Hence both are necessary. We learnt elsewhere: In the case of a flask (10) into which a little water fell, (11) R. Eliezer said: He [the priest] makes two sprinklings; (12) but the Sages disqualify [it]. As for the Rabbis, it is well: They hold that we assume even distribution, (13) and sprinkling requires a [minimum] standard, and sprinklings do not combine. (14) But what does R. Eliezer hold? If he holds that there is no even distribution, what if he does sprinkle twice; perhaps he sprinkles [ordinary] water both times? — Rather, he holds that there is even distribution. Now, if he holds that sprinkling does not require a [minimum] standard, why must he sprinkle twice? — Rather, he holds that sprinkling does require a [minimum] standard. And if he holds that sprinklings do not combine, what if he does sprinkle twice? And even if sprinklings do combine, who can say that the standard is made up? — Said Resh Lakish: In truth he holds that there is even distribution, and sprinkling does require a [minimum] standard; but the case we discuss here is where one [standard quantity] was mixed up with another. (15) Raba said: In truth there is even distribution, and sprinkling does not require a standard; but the Rabbis penalized [him] so that he should not benefit thereby. (16) R. Ashi said: There is no even distribution, [therefore] he must sprinkle twice. (17) An objection is raised: Rabbi said: According to R. Eliezer, (18) the sprinkling of any quantity purifies, sprinkling does not require a standard, sprinkling [is permissible if] half [the water] is fit and half is unfit. (19)

---

(1). ↑ E.g., the blood of a firstling with that of tithe.
(2). ↑ E.g., the blood of a burnt-offering with that of a peace, or a guilt-offering.
(3). ↑ And I regard the superfluous three applications in respect of e.g. the firstling as though they were water.
(4). ↑ Because one must not make more applications than are necessary. On the other hand, even where four are required one suffices (supra 36b).
(5). ↑ V. Deut. IV, 2.
(6). ↑ V. supra 74a. Here too, the blood of two goblets must be presented each time together.
(7). ↑ V. p. 371, n. 1.
(8). ↑ The controversy of R. Eliezer and the Rabbis is taught here and supra 77b, q.v. in reference to limbs.
(9). ↑ The limbs were mixed up after the blood was sprinkled. Thus atonement (sc. sprinkling) was already made, and therefore R. Eliezer is lenient.
(10). ↑ Containing water sanctified for lustration; v. Num. XIX, (17) seq.
(11). ↑ Ordinary, unsanctified water.
(12). ↑ On an unclean person, whereby he becomes clean.
(13). ↑ Lit., ‘there is thorough mixture’ — we assume that a mixture is evenly distributed.
(14). ↑ The unsanctified water is regarded as evenly distributed in the sanctified. Therefore when he sprinkles, it lacks the minimum standard, since part of it is unfit. He cannot remedy this by sprinkling again, for sprinklings do not combine. (It is assumed that one sprinkling could not contain more than the minimum quantity required.)
(15). ↑ Both the unfit and the fit water each contained the minimum standard. Hence when he sprinkles the whole in two applications, he must sprinkle the required amount; v. Parah IX, 1.
(16). ↑ The Rabbis ordered two sprinklings instead of one so that we should not benefit by the addition of unfit water to be able to use this for more unclean persons than would otherwise have been possible.
(17). ↑ Sprinkling does not require a minimum standard. Now, in one sprinkling only all the water may be the unfit, since there is no even distribution. But in two this is impossible, for only a small quantity fell into it in the first place.
(18). ↑ That two sprinklings purify.
(19). ↑ This contradicts Resh Lakish.