— Said R. Huna: It refers to cataracts in the eye, and is in accordance with R. Akiba who maintained that if they ascended [the altar], they do not descend. (1) Granted that R. Akiba ruled thus if it was done; did he rule thus at the very outset? (2) — Said R. Papa: The circumstances here are, e.g., that they went up the ascent. If so, even when they are by themselves [they must be offered]? (3) — Rather, [this is] R. Eliezer's reason: The Divine Law expressed a limitation in, ‘There is a blemish in them; [they shall not be accepted:]’ (4) only when there is a blemish in them shall they not be accepted, but when they are mixed up they are accepted. And the Rabbis? (5) — Only when the blemish is in them shall they not be accepted, but if their blemish has gone they are accepted. And R. Eliezer? (6) — [He derives it] from bam, bahem. (7) And the Rabbis? — They attribute no significance to (8) bam, bahem. If so, [how can R. Eliezer say,] ‘I regard’. Surely the Divine Law declared it fit? (9) — He says this to them on their ruling: In my opinion, the Divine Law declared it fit; but [even] on your view, you should at least admit that the flesh of a blemished animal is like wood, by analogy with the flesh of a sin-offering. And the Rabbis? — Here10 it is repulsive;11 there (12) it is not repulsive. MISHNAH. [IF THE] LIMBS OF BURNTOFFERINGS [WERE MIXED UP] WITH THE LIMBS OF A BLEMISHED [BURNTOFFERING], R. ELIEZER SAID: IF [THE PRIEST] OFFERED THE HEAD OF ONE OF THEM, ALL THE HEADS ARE TO BE OFFERED; THE LEGS OF ONE OF THEM, ALL THE LEGS ARE TO BE OFFERED. (13) BUT THE SAGES MAINTAIN: EVEN IF THEY HAD OFFERED ALL EXCEPT ONE OF THEM, IT GOES FORTH TO THE PLACE OF BURNING. GEMARA. R. Eleazar said: R. Eliezer declared them fit only in twos, but not singly. (14) R. Jacob raised an objection to R. Jeremiah: (15) BUT THE SAGES MAINTAIN: EVEN IF THEY HAD OFFERED ALL EXCEPT ONE OF THEM, IT GOES FORTH TO THE PLACE OF BURNING? (16) — Said R. Jeremiah b. Tahlifa, I will explain it for you: What does ONE mean? One pair. MISHNAH. IF THE BLOOD WAS MIXED WITH WATER, IF IT RETAINS THE APPEARANCE OF BLOOD, IT IS FIT, (17) IF IT WAS MIXED WITH WINE, WE REGARD IT AS THOUGH IT WERE WATER. (18) IF IT WAS MIXED WITH THE BLOOD OF A DOMESTIC ANIMAL OR BEAST OF CHASE, WE REGARD IT AS THOUGH IT WERE WATER;

---

(1). ↑ V. Bekh. 16a.
(2). ↑ That they may be taken up-surely not!
(3). ↑ According to R. Akiba, not only when they are mixed up with unblemished animals.
(4). ↑ Lev. XXII, 25. ‘Shall not be accepted’ intimates that they must not he presented on the altar.
(5). ↑ How do they interpret this?
(6). ↑ How does he know this?
(7). ↑ Scripture writes bam (in them) instead of bahem, as it does in the preceding phrase: ‘because their corruption is bahem (in them)’. The change in word suggests a double limitation, and so both are learnt from it. Var. lec.: Scripture writes bam, bahem, i.e., two limiting words.
(8). ↑ Lit., ‘they do not interpret’.
(9). ↑ If the text teaches that the limbs are fit to be burnt on the altar, how can you regard them as mere wood?
(10). ↑ In the case of a blemished animal.
(11). ↑ To burn it on the altar.
(12). ↑ The flesh of a sin-offering.
(13). ↑ Burnt on the altar. For I assume that the head or the legs already offered belonged to the blemished animal, and so all the rest are of the unblemished ones; v. supra 74a.
(14). ↑ V. supra 74a.
(15). ↑ Emended text (Sh. M.).
(16). ↑ Hence R. Eliezer must hold that this last one would be offered, which shows that they can be offered singly.
(17). ↑ For sprinkling.
(18). ↑ And if the blood would lose its appearance in that quantity of water, it is unfit. Similarly the following clauses.