ערך מלק
(1) 
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי קׇרְבַּן יָחִיד שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּקׇרְבַּן יָחִיד וְקׇרְבַּן צִיבּוּר שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּקׇרְבַּן צִיבּוּר וְקׇרְבַּן יָחִיד וְקׇרְבַּן צִיבּוּר שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ זֶה בָּזֶה נוֹתֵן ד׳ אַרְבַּע מַתָּנוֹת מִכׇּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד וְאִם נָתַן מַתָּנָה מִכׇּל אֶחָד יָצָא וְאִם נָתַן אַרְבַּע מִכּוּלָּן יָצָא.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי קׇרְבַּן יָחִיד שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּקׇרְבַּן יָחִיד וְקׇרְבַּן צִיבּוּר שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּקׇרְבַּן צִיבּוּר וְקׇרְבַּן יָחִיד וְקׇרְבַּן צִיבּוּר שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ זֶה בָּזֶה נוֹתֵן Abaye raised an objection to this from a baraita (Tosefta 8:22): With regard to the offering of an individual that was intermingled with another offering of an individual, and likewise a communal offering that was intermingled with another communal offering, or the offering of an individual and a communal offering that were intermingled with each other, the priest places four placements of blood from each and every one of them on the altar, and in this manner fulfills the obligation of the blood rites of all the offerings. But if he placed one placement from each one, he has fulfilled his obligation. And likewise, if he placed four placements from all of them together, he has fulfilled his obligation.
קרבן יחיד שנתערב כו׳ – בכולהו גרסינן קרבן.
קרבן יחיד בקרבן ציבור – כגון שעיר נשיא בשעיר הרגלים או עולה בעולה.
הכי גרסינן: ואם נתן מתנה מכל אחד יצא – כדאמרן בפרק בית שמאי (לעיל דף לו:) כל הניתנין על המזבח החיצון שנתנן במתנה אחת כיפר.
ארבע מתנות – שתים מתנות שהן ארבע קאמר.
ואם נתן ארבע מכולן יצא – פירש בקונטרס מזה שנים ומזה שנים ותימה דבאחת מזה ואחת מזה סגי ואין לומר דאתיא כבית שמאי (לעיל דף לו:) דאמרי ובחטאת שתי מתנות דהא קתני סיפא ואם נתן מתנה אחת מכולן יצא ויש לומר דקאי על כל ארבע חטאות שנים של יחיד ושנים של ציבור ואיכא השתא ארבע כוסות ולהכי קאמר נתן ד׳ מתנות יצא דהיינו מתנה אחת מכל אחת ואחת.
איתיביה [הקשה לו לרב יוסף] אביי ממה ששנינו בברייתא: קרבן של יחיד שנתערב בקרבן של יחיד, וכן קרבן ציבור שנתערב בקרבן ציבור, או קרבן יחיד וקרבן ציבור שנתערבו זה בזה, ואין ניכרים זה מזה — נותן הכהן ארבע מתנות דם, מכל אחד ואחד מהם, שבכך יוצא ידי חובת כולם. ואם נתן מתנה מכל אחד — יצא ידי חובה. ואם נתן ארבע מתנות מכולן יחד — יצא.
Abaye raised an objection to this from a baraita (Tosefta 8:22): With regard to the offering of an individual that was intermingled with another offering of an individual, and likewise a communal offering that was intermingled with another communal offering, or the offering of an individual and a communal offering that were intermingled with each other, the priest places four placements of blood from each and every one of them on the altar, and in this manner fulfills the obligation of the blood rites of all the offerings. But if he placed one placement from each one, he has fulfilled his obligation. And likewise, if he placed four placements from all of them together, he has fulfilled his obligation.
הכל
(2) בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ חַיִּין אֲבָל נִתְעָרְבוּ שְׁחוּטִין נוֹתֵן אַרְבַּע מַתָּנוֹת מִכּוּלָּן.
The baraita continues: In what case is this statement, that he places from the blood of each of the offerings ab initio, said? In a case where the offerings were intermingled when they were still alive, before they were sacrificed, and therefore the priest could perform four placements from the blood of each animal separately. But if slaughtered animals were then intermingled, i.e., their blood became mixed together in one container, the priest places four placements from all of them together, only one set of four.
The baraita continues: In what case is this statement, that he places from the blood of each of the offerings ab initio, said? In a case where the offerings were intermingled when they were still alive, before they were sacrificed, and therefore the priest could perform four placements from the blood of each animal separately. But if slaughtered animals were then intermingled, i.e., their blood became mixed together in one container, the priest places four placements from all of them together, only one set of four.
בד״א – דבעינן ארבע מתנות מכל אחד לכתחילה.
אבל נתערבו שחוטין – שנבלל דמם בכוס אחד נותן ד׳ מתנות מכולם יחד שהרי יש כאן משניהם קסבר יש בילה.
במה דברים אמורים שנותן לכתחילה מדמו של כל אחד ואחד? שנתערבו הקרבנות הללו בעודם חיין (לפני שהוקרבו), ויכול הכהן לתת ארבע מתנות מדמו של כל אחד ואחד בנפרד. אבל אם נתערבו שחוטין שנבלל דמם בכלי אחד — נותן הכהן ארבע מתנות מכולן יחד.
The baraita continues: In what case is this statement, that he places from the blood of each of the offerings ab initio, said? In a case where the offerings were intermingled when they were still alive, before they were sacrificed, and therefore the priest could perform four placements from the blood of each animal separately. But if slaughtered animals were then intermingled, i.e., their blood became mixed together in one container, the priest places four placements from all of them together, only one set of four.
הכל
(3) וְאִם נָתַן מַתָּנָה אַחַת מִכּוּלָּן יָצָא רַבִּי אוֹמֵר רוֹאִין אֶת הַמַּתָּנָה אִם יֵשׁ בָּהּ כְּדֵי לָזֶה וּכְדֵי לָזֶה כְּשֵׁרָה וְאִם לָאו פְּסוּלָה.
And in any case, if he placed one placement from all of them, he has fulfilled his obligation, as the blood of all these offerings is placed on the outer altar, and with regard to all of them one fulfills the obligation after the fact with a single placement. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: One assesses the blood of the placement given from each animal; if there is enough in that blood for a placement of blood for this offering and enough for that one, it is fit, but if not, the offering is disqualified.
And in any case, if he placed one placement from all of them, he has fulfilled his obligation, as the blood of all these offerings is placed on the outer altar, and with regard to all of them one fulfills the obligation after the fact with a single placement. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: One assesses the blood of the placement given from each animal; if there is enough in that blood for a placement of blood for this offering and enough for that one, it is fit, but if not, the offering is disqualified.
ומכל מקום אם נתן מתנה אחת מכולן — יצא, שכל הקרבנות הניתנים על המזבח החיצון, אם נתן מדמם נתינה אחת בלבד — יצא ידי חובתו. רבי אומר: רואין (מודדים) את המתנה שנתן מכולם, אם יש בה כדי שיעור נתינה לזה וכדי לזה — כשרה, ואם לאו [לא] — פסולה.
And in any case, if he placed one placement from all of them, he has fulfilled his obligation, as the blood of all these offerings is placed on the outer altar, and with regard to all of them one fulfills the obligation after the fact with a single placement. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: One assesses the blood of the placement given from each animal; if there is enough in that blood for a placement of blood for this offering and enough for that one, it is fit, but if not, the offering is disqualified.
הכל
(4) קָתָנֵי יָחִיד דֻּומְיָא דְּצִיבּוּר מָה צִיבּוּר גַּבְרֵי אַף יָחִיד גַּבְרֵי.
The Gemara explains the difficulty: This baraita indicates that if live offerings became intermingled, each is sacrificed for its owner, despite the fact that these offerings are owned by men and therefore require placing of the hands. It is evident that the baraita is referring to offerings of men, as it teaches the case of the offering of an individual adjacent to, and therefore similar to, the case of a communal offering: Just as a communal offering is sacrificed by men, so too, the offering of an individual that is being discussed here also belongs to men. This presents a difficulty to the explanation of Rav Yosef.
The Gemara explains the difficulty: This baraita indicates that if live offerings became intermingled, each is sacrificed for its owner, despite the fact that these offerings are owned by men and therefore require placing of the hands. It is evident that the baraita is referring to offerings of men, as it teaches the case of the offering of an individual adjacent to, and therefore similar to, the case of a communal offering: Just as a communal offering is sacrificed by men, so too, the offering of an individual that is being discussed here also belongs to men. This presents a difficulty to the explanation of Rav Yosef.
אף יחיד בגברי – ואע״ג דבעי סמיכה ומדציבור לא מצי לאותביה שאין סמיכה בציבור אלא בחטאות הפנימיו׳ והכא בפנימיות לא קמיירי מדקתני ארבע מתנות.
על כל פנים למדנו מכאן שקרבנות חיים שנתערבו — כל אחד קרב לשם בעליו, למרות שקרבנות של אנשים הם, וצריכים סמיכה, שהרי קתני [הוא שונה כאן] קרבן יחיד דומיא [בדומה] לקרבן ציבור, מה קרבן ציבור המדובר הוא בקרבנם של גברי [אנשים], שהרי אנשים מקריבים אותו, ולא נשים, אף קרבן של יחיד מדובר בשל גברי [אנשים] ולא נשים. וקשה איפוא לרב יוסף!
The Gemara explains the difficulty: This baraita indicates that if live offerings became intermingled, each is sacrificed for its owner, despite the fact that these offerings are owned by men and therefore require placing of the hands. It is evident that the baraita is referring to offerings of men, as it teaches the case of the offering of an individual adjacent to, and therefore similar to, the case of a communal offering: Just as a communal offering is sacrificed by men, so too, the offering of an individual that is being discussed here also belongs to men. This presents a difficulty to the explanation of Rav Yosef.
הכל
(5) אָמַר רָבָא וְתִסְבְּרָא הָא מְתָרַצְתָּא הִיא דְּקָתָנֵי בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ חַיִּין אֲבָל נִתְעָרְבוּ שְׁחוּטִין לָא מָה לִי חַיִּים מָה לִי שְׁחוּטִין.
Rava says: And can you understand the baraita in this manner? Is this baraita accurate as it stands? There is another difficulty with the baraita, as it teaches: In what case is this statement said? It is said in a case where these offerings were intermingled when they were still alive. But if slaughtered animals were intermingled it is not said. This is problematic, as what difference is it to me whether the animals are alive or whether they are slaughtered? This is not the decisive factor, as even if the animals were slaughtered, if the blood of each is in a separate vessel the priest should perform separate placements from the blood of each.
Rava says: And can you understand the baraita in this manner? Is this baraita accurate as it stands? There is another difficulty with the baraita, as it teaches: In what case is this statement said? It is said in a case where these offerings were intermingled when they were still alive. But if slaughtered animals were intermingled it is not said. This is problematic, as what difference is it to me whether the animals are alive or whether they are slaughtered? This is not the decisive factor, as even if the animals were slaughtered, if the blood of each is in a separate vessel the priest should perform separate placements from the blood of each.
ותסברא הא מתרצתא היא – והאי חיין דוקא הוא ואנתערבו קודם סמיכה קאי הא קתני אבל שחוטין לא בעי ד׳ מכל אחד לכתחילה ובשחוטין נמי משכחת לה דבעיא כגון שנתערבו כוסות בכוסות ואין ידוע איזהו של זה ואיזהו של זה ולא נבללו הדמים בכוס אחד.
אמר רבא לאביי בדחיית קושייתו זו: ותסברא הא מתרצתא [וכי סבור אתה שברייתא זו מיושבת, נטולת קושיות] היא, שאתה יכול להוכיח ממנה? והרי דקתני [מה שהוא שונה] בה: במה דברים אמורים שצריך לתת מדמו של כל אחד ואחד? כשנתערבו חיין, אבל נתערבו שחוטין — לא, יש לשאול על כך: מה לי חיים מה לי שחוטין? וכי בזה תלוי ההבדל? הרי אף בשחוטים, אם היה דמו של כל אחד בכלי לעצמו, ואין אנו יודעים מהו דמו של כל קרבן — צריך הכהן לתת מכל אחד ואחד!
Rava says: And can you understand the baraita in this manner? Is this baraita accurate as it stands? There is another difficulty with the baraita, as it teaches: In what case is this statement said? It is said in a case where these offerings were intermingled when they were still alive. But if slaughtered animals were intermingled it is not said. This is problematic, as what difference is it to me whether the animals are alive or whether they are slaughtered? This is not the decisive factor, as even if the animals were slaughtered, if the blood of each is in a separate vessel the priest should perform separate placements from the blood of each.
הכל
(6) אֶלָּא הָכִי קָאָמַר בד״א בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ שְׁחוּטִין כְּעֵין חַיִּים בְּכוֹסוֹת אֲבָל בְּבוֹלֵל נוֹתֵן ד׳ אַרְבַּע מַתָּנוֹת לְכוּלָּן וְאִם נָתַן מַתָּנָה אַחַת לְכוּלָּן יָצָא.
Rava continues: Rather, this is what the baraita is saying: In what case is this statement said? It is said in a case where these offerings were intermingled after they were slaughtered, but they were similar to living animals, i.e., the blood of each animal was in separate cups. But in a situation where the blood of these animals was mixed together in a single cup, the priest places four placements of blood from all of them. And if he placed one placement from all of them, he has fulfilled his obligation. If so, this baraita has no bearing on the issue of offerings that became intermingled while they were still alive, as it deals exclusively with the blood of animals that have been slaughtered.
Rava continues: Rather, this is what the baraita is saying: In what case is this statement said? It is said in a case where these offerings were intermingled after they were slaughtered, but they were similar to living animals, i.e., the blood of each animal was in separate cups. But in a situation where the blood of these animals was mixed together in a single cup, the priest places four placements of blood from all of them. And if he placed one placement from all of them, he has fulfilled his obligation. If so, this baraita has no bearing on the issue of offerings that became intermingled while they were still alive, as it deals exclusively with the blood of animals that have been slaughtered.
אלא – האי חיין לאו דוקא והכי קאמר בד״א דצריך ארבע מתנות מכל אחד לכתחילה.
שנתערבו שחוטין – כוסות בכוסות דהיינו כעין חיין דכל חד לחודיה קאי.
אבל בבולל – שני הדמים לתוך כוס אחד נותן ארבע מתנות לכולן והשתא ליכא לאותובי סמיכה דהא לאחר שחיטה וסמיכה נתערבו אבל קודם סמיכה לא ירצו לדברי הכל.
אלא הכי קאמר [כך אומר התנא שבברייתא]: במה דברים אמורים שנותן מתנה מכל אחד? שנתערבו שחוטין כעין חיים כלומר בכוסות שדמו של כל קרבן נמצא בכוס לעצמה, אבל בבולל שנתערבו הדמים זה בזה לתוך כוס אחת — נותן ארבע מתנות לכולן, ואם נתן מתנה אחת לכולן — יצא. ואין איפוא ראייה מן הברייתא שסמיכה אינה מעכבת בקרבנות שנתערבו, שהרי מדובר בה כשנתערבו לאחר סמיכה.
Rava continues: Rather, this is what the baraita is saying: In what case is this statement said? It is said in a case where these offerings were intermingled after they were slaughtered, but they were similar to living animals, i.e., the blood of each animal was in separate cups. But in a situation where the blood of these animals was mixed together in a single cup, the priest places four placements of blood from all of them. And if he placed one placement from all of them, he has fulfilled his obligation. If so, this baraita has no bearing on the issue of offerings that became intermingled while they were still alive, as it deals exclusively with the blood of animals that have been slaughtered.
הכל
(7) רַבִּי אוֹמֵר רוֹאִין אֶת הַמַּתָּנָה אִם יֵשׁ בָּהּ כְּדֵי לָזֶה וּכְדֵי לָזֶה כְּשֵׁרָה וְאִם לָאו פְּסוּלָה וּמִי אִית לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי הַאי סְבָרָא וְהָא תַּנְיָא אָמַר רַבִּי לְדִבְרֵי ר״א רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר
§ The baraita cited teaches that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: One assesses the blood of the placement given from each animal; if there is enough in that blood for a placement of blood for this offering and enough for that offering, it is fit, but if not, the offerings are disqualified. The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi hold in accordance with this line of reasoning, that there must be a minimum amount of blood placed from each offering? But isn’t it taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Para 9:5) with regard to the water of purification into which water that is invalid for sprinkling fell that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: According to the statement of Rabbi Eliezer,
§ The baraita cited teaches that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: One assesses the blood of the placement given from each animal; if there is enough in that blood for a placement of blood for this offering and enough for that offering, it is fit, but if not, the offerings are disqualified. The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi hold in accordance with this line of reasoning, that there must be a minimum amount of blood placed from each offering? But isn’t it taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Para 9:5) with regard to the water of purification into which water that is invalid for sprinkling fell that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: According to the statement of Rabbi Eliezer,
רבי אליעזר – לגבי מי חטאת קאי ומייתינן לה לקמן בפירקין (זבחים פ.) צלוחית של מי חטאת המוקדשין שנפל לתוכן מים אחרים כל שהוא רבי אליעזר אומר יזה שתי הזאות ולקמן מפרש מילתיה וקאמר רבי לדברי רבי אליעזר הזאה אינה צריכה שיעור אגבא דגברא דאי צריכא שיעור נהי נמי דיש בילה וסמכינן עלה דודאי יש בכלל הזאה מן המים הכשרים ומצטרפין מה שבראשונה ומה שבשניה מי יימר דמליא שיעורא.
א שנינו בברייתא זו, רבי אומר: רואין את המתנה, אם יש בה כדי לזה וכדי לזה — כשרה, ואם לא — פסולה. ושואלים על כך: ומי אית ליה [והאם יש לו] לרבי האי סברא [סברה זו] שצריך שיהא בדם שיעור נתינה? והא תניא [והרי שנינו בברייתא] בענין מי חטאת (של פרה אדומה) שנפלו לתוכם מים שפסולים להזאה, אמר רבי: לדברי ר׳ אליעזר,
§ The baraita cited teaches that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: One assesses the blood of the placement given from each animal; if there is enough in that blood for a placement of blood for this offering and enough for that offering, it is fit, but if not, the offerings are disqualified. The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi hold in accordance with this line of reasoning, that there must be a minimum amount of blood placed from each offering? But isn’t it taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Para 9:5) with regard to the water of purification into which water that is invalid for sprinkling fell that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: According to the statement of Rabbi Eliezer,
הכל
© כל הזכויות שמורות. העתקת קטעים מן הטקסטים מותרת לשימוש אישי בלבד, ובתנאי שסך ההעתקות אינו עולה על 5% של החיבור השלם.List of Editions
© All rights reserved. Copying of paragraphs is permitted for personal use only, and on condition that total copying does not exceed 5% of the full work.
זבחים עה. – מהדורת על־התורה (כל הזכויות שמורות)
כולל ניקוד ופיסוק בפרקים מובחרים באדיבות הרב דן בארי, וניקוד בשאר מסכתות באדיבות דיקטה - המרכז הישראלי לניתוח טקסטים (CC BY-NC), הערוך על סדר הש"ס זבחים עה., רש"י זבחים עה., תוספות זבחים עה., פירוש הרב שטיינזלץ זבחים עה.
Zevachim 75a – William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz Even-Israel (CC-BY-NC 4.0), Collected from HeArukh Zevachim 75a, Rashi Zevachim 75a, Tosafot Zevachim 75a, Steinsaltz Commentary Zevachim 75a