why is ‘blood’ repeated? (1) For one might think: I only know about a burnt-offering which was mixed up with its substitute, (2) for even [if they were mixed up] whilst alive, they must be offered. Whence do I know to include the thanks-offering and the peace-offering? (3) I include the thanks-offering and the peaceoffering. because they can be brought as a votive or a freewill-offering. (4) like itself. Whence do I know to include the guiltoffering? I include the guilt-offering which requires four applications, like itself, Whence do I know [to include] a firstling, tithe, and the Passover-offering? Because it says, blood, blood. (5) Now surely that speaks of the end of the burnt-offering and [the beginning of] the firstling; whence you may infer that the place of the burnt-offering is the place of the residue? — No: it speaks of the beginning of the burntoffering and [that of] the firstling. What then does he inform us? that sacrifices do not nullify one another! [Surely] that is deduced from [the text]. And he shall take of the blood of the bullock and of the blood of the goat? — It is a controversy of Tannaim: one deduces it from this text, and another deduces it from the other text. Now, these Tannaim do not learn it from ‘and he shall take of the blood of the bullock and of the blood of the goat’, because they hold, You do not mingle [the blood] for [sprinkling] on the horns. (6) They do not learn it from the repetition of ‘blood’, because they do not attribute any significance to this repetition. But why do they not deduce it from ‘they are holy’? (7) — They hold [that] ‘they are holy’ [teaches:] ‘they’ are offered, but their substitute is not offered. (8) And the other? (9) — He deduces it from, Whether it be ox or sheep, it is the Lord's: (10) ‘it’ is offered, but its substitute is not offered. Come and hear: If [the priest] sprinkled [it] (11) above without asking, both agree that he must re-sprinkle [it] below, and both are accounted to him. Now does that not mean that [the blood of] a sin-offering and [that of] a burntoffering were mixed, in which case as soon as he sprinkles above, it becomes a residue, yet he teaches, ‘both agree that he must resprinkle [it] below’, which proves that the place of the burnt-offering is the place of the residue? — When R. Isaac b. Joseph came, (12) he said: In the West (13) they said: The case we are discussing here is where e.g. [the blood of] an outer sin-offering was mixed with the residue of an inner sin-offering. (14) Said Abaye to him: Yet let the master say, ‘e.g., where it was mixed with a residue’? (15) perhaps this is what you would inform us: Even on the view that the residue (16) is indispensable, (17) yet if some of it is lacking it does not matter? (18) Said Raba Tosfa'ah (19) to Rabina: But we have explained that as meaning that the greater part was upper [blood], and he sprinkles above as much as there was of the lower [blood] plus a little more? (20) — That was only, he replied, on the hypothesis first stated that [the Mishnah treats of where the blood itself] was mingled, and in accordance with the thesis that there is no even distribution. But in our final conclusion [we hold that] they disagree where the goblets were mixed up. (21) MISHNAH. IF [BLOOD] WHICH IS TO BE SPRINKLED WITHIN WAS MIXED WITH [BLOOD] THAT IS TO BE SPRINKLED WITHOUT, IT MUST BE POURED OUT INTO THEDUCT. IF [THE PRIEST] SPRINKLED WITHOUT AND THEN SPRINKLED WITHIN, IT ISVALID. [IF HE SPRINKLED] WITHIN AND THEN RESPRINKLED WITHOUT, R. AKIBA DECLARES IT UNFIT, WHILE THE SAGES DECLARE IT FIT. FOR R. AKIBA MAINTAINED: ALL BLOOD WHICH ENTERED THE HEKAL TO MAKE ATONEMENT IS UNFIT; BUT THE SAGES RULE: THE SIN-OFFERING ALONE [IS UNFIT]. R. ELIEZER SAID: THE GUILTOFFERING TOO, FOR IT SAYS, AS IS THE SIN-OFFERING, SO IS THE GUILTOFFERING. (22) GEMARA. Now, let R. Eliezer disagree here too? — What should be done? Shall we [first] sprinkle without and then sprinkle within? [that cannot be done], [because] just as the upper [blood] must precede the lower, so must the inner precede the outer.

---

(1). ↑ Rashi reads: How do we know that if the blood of a burnt-offering was mixed with the blood of another burnt-offering, or with the blood of a substitute (v. p. 22, n. 8), or with the blood of hullin, it must be offered (i.e., sprinkled)? Because it says, blood, blood (i.e., this repetition is an extension). I know it only of these, for even if these were mixed up whilst alive they must be offered. How do I know it even when it is mixed with the blood of a guilt-offering?, etc.
(2). ↑ Sc. their blood was mixed. — From the verse I know that their blood must still be sprinkled.
(3). ↑ That the blood of a burnt-offering must be sprinkled even if it is mixed with these; similarly the other cases posited.
(4). ↑ V. supra 2b, p. 2, n. 6.
(5). ↑ The repetition teaches the inclusion of all these.
(6). ↑ Of the altar; supra 42b. Hence the blood of each must be stated, because they were taken separately, not mixed together, and so no inference can be made from the text about nullification.
(7). ↑ As the first Tanna does.
(8). ↑ A substitute of a firstling must be redeemed, but cannot be offered.
(9). ↑ The first Tanna: how does he know this?
(10). ↑ Lev. XXVII, 26. This refers to a firstling.
(11). ↑ The mingled blood.
(12). ↑ From Eretz Israel.
(13). ↑ Sc. Palestine, which lies to the west of Babylon.
(14). ↑ Emended text. After he sprinkles thereof above the red line, all the rest is the residue, which must be poured out at the base.
(15). ↑ Not particularly ‘the residue of an inner sinoffering’.
(16). ↑ Sc. of the inner sin-offering.
(17). ↑ It must be poured out at the base; otherwise the sacrifice is invalid.
(18). ↑ It is unnecessary for the whole of the residue to be poured out on the base. For here some of the residue will have been sprinkled above the line, and yet the sacrifice is valid when the rest is poured out at the base.
(19). ↑ Perhaps of Thospia. Neub. Geogr. p. 332: capital of the Armenian district Thospitis.
(20). ↑ And he applies it below as the residue of the sin-offering, not as the blood of the burnt-offering, which does not become valid. Hence even if it were explained as the mingling of the sin-offering and the burnt-offering, it would not prove that the place of the burnt-offering is the place of the residue, since the burnt-offering does not become fit. Why then must you explain it as meaning that the blood of a sin-offering and the residue were mingled?
(21). ↑ And unless it refers to a sin-offering and residue, this contradicts the opinion that the place of the burnt-offering is not the place of the residue.
(22). ↑ Lev. VII, 7. V. supra 10b for notes.