OR THAT WAS KILAYIM; (1) OR TEREFAH; OR AN ANIMAL CALVED THROUGH THE CAESAREAN SECTION, (2) THEY MUST GRAZE UNTIL THEY BECOME UNFIT; (3) THEN THEY ARE SOLD, AND ONE BRINGS [A SACRIFICE] OF THE SAME KIND (4) AT THE PRICE OF THE BETTER OF THEM. (5) IF THEY WERE MIXED UP WITH UNBLEMISHED [ANIMALS] OF HULLIN, (6) THE HULLIN MUST BE SOLD FOR THE PURPOSE OF THAT KIND. (7) [IF] A SACRIFICE [WAS MIXED UP] WITH A SACRIFICE, BOTH BEING OF THE SAME KIND: (8) THIS ONE MUST BE OFFERED IN THE NAME OF WHOEVER IS ITS OWNER, AND THE OTHER MUST BE OFFERED IN THE NAME OF WHOEVER IS ITS OWNER. (9) [IF] A SACRIFICE [WAS MIXED UP] WITH A SACRIFICE, BOTH BEING OF DIFFERENT KINDS, (10) THEY MUST GRAZE UNTIL THEY BECOME UNFIT, (11) AND THEN ONE PURCHASES AT THE PRICE OF THE BETTER OF THEM [AN ANIMAL] OF EACH KIND, (12) AND BEARS THE LOSS OF THE EXCESS OUT OF HIS OWN POCKET. (13) IF THEY WERE MIXED UP WITH A FIRSTLING OR TITHE, THEY MUST GRAZE UNTIL THEY BECOME UNFIT, AND THEN ARE EATEN AS FIRSTLING OR TITHE. (14) ALL [SACRIFICES] CAN BE MIXED UP, EXCEPT THE SINOFFERING AND THE GUILT-OFFERING. (15) GEMARA. What does EVEN mean? (16) — This is what he means: ALL SACRIFICES with which SIN-OFFERINGS THAT MUST BE LEFT TO DIE, E.G., AN OX THAT MUST BE STONED, BECAME MIXED UP, EVEN ONE IN TEN THOUSAND, MUST BE LEFT TO DIE. (17) [But] we have already learnt it once: All which are forbidden to the altar, e.g., a roba’ and a nirba’, render [others] forbidden whatever their number? (18) — Said R. Kahana: I reported this discussion to R. Shimi b. Ashi, and he said to me: They are both necessary. (19) For if [we learnt] from there, I would say. That is only [where they are forbidden] to the altar; (20) but [where they are forbidden] to a layman, it is not [so]. (21) While if [we learnt] from here, I would say that [this ruling applies] only to these, which are forbidden for any use; but as for the others, which are not forbidden for general use, it is not [so]. (22) Thus they are both necessary. But surely those which are not interdicted for all use are taught [in this Mishnah]? (23) — Does he teach by what number [they render all forbidden]? (24) Then let him teach the other, and we would not require this one? — He needs the remedy. (25) But [those which are forbidden] to layman he also teaches; [there:] The following are themselves forbidden, and render [others] forbidden, whatever their number: Wine of nesek26 and [animals of] idolatry? (27)

---

(1). ↑ A hybrid, offspring of two heterogeneous animals, e.g., a goat and a sheep.
(2). ↑ These last two are included, though not implicated in sin, because the same law applies to them.
(3). ↑ I.e., blemished.
(4). ↑ As that which had thus been mixed up.
(5). ↑ None of these are eligible for sacrifices, yet a layman may make use of (though not eat) them; therefore they are not left to perish. At present, however, these animals cannot be used, since one of them is sacred, nor can they be redeemed (i.e., sold, and the money devoted to a sacrifice), for an unblemished consecrated animal cannot be redeemed. Hence they must be allowed to graze until they receive a blemish, when they are sold, etc.
(6). ↑ One consecrated animal with either one or many of hullin.
(7). ↑ E.g., an animal consecrated for a peace-offering was mixed up with five of hullin, five of the six must be sold to people who owe a peace-offering. Thus all the six are now sacred and stand for the same purpose.
(8). ↑ E.g., both are peace-offerings or burntofferings, but belong to different owners.
(9). ↑ Rashi: the priest who offers it must declare, ‘Lo, this is for the sake of its owner’, without specifying a name. Tosaf, and Sh. M.: the priest says nothing at all about its owner, and then it is tacitly understood to be for its owner, whoever he is.
(10). ↑ E.g., a burnt-offering with a peace-offering.
(11). ↑ They cannot be offered themselves, because their rites of sprinkling and presenting the emurim are dissimilar.
(12). ↑ One for each sacrifice.
(13). ↑ The two animals, each of the value of the better of the first two, naturally involve a loss.
(14). ↑ The animals are redeemed, and other sacrifices bought with the redemption money. All those which were mixed up are eaten as firstling or tithe, i.e., they are subject to the same laws as these when blemished, which is that they must not be slaughtered in the public abattoirs (market) nor sold by weight.
(15). ↑ Because they are distinct, as explained in the Gemara.
(16). ↑ EVEN ONE IN TEN THOUSAND implies that the unfit are in the majority. But in that case it is all the more obvious that they cannot be sacrificed.
(17). ↑ This reverses the numbers.
(18). ↑ I.e., the smallest number of forbidden animals disqualify even the largest number with which they are mixed up. v. Tem. 28a. That is the same as our Mishnah.
(19). ↑ Emended text (Sh. M.).
(20). ↑ Lit., ‘to the All-high’.
(21). ↑ All those enumerated there are forbidden to the altar but not for general use, and so they can (and must) be redeemed. Here, however, they are completely forbidden, and cannot be redeemed. I would say therefore that we cannot be so strict as to rule that all must die, but that on the contrary the one (or few) is annulled by the many, and all are permitted. Hence the Mishnah informs us otherwise.
(22). ↑ This reverses the preceding argument. I would argue that we are stricter here, precisely because the interdict is greater.
(23). ↑ Sc. in the clause, IF THEY BECAME MIXED UP WITH AN OX, etc. These are only forbidden as sacrifices, but not for general use.
(24). ↑ EVEN ONE IN TEN THOUSAND may apply only to what precedes, but not to what follows. Hence the other Mishnah is necessary.
(25). ↑ The other Mishnah only states that they cannot be sacrificed. Here he teaches what is to be done with them.
(26). ↑ V. Glos.
(27). ↑ If wine of Nesek is mixed with other permitted wine, or animals which had been worshiped are mixed up with others, they are all forbidden for any use whatever.