Quoting%20commentary for Zevachim 162:3

מרבה אני את האשם שטעון מתן ד' כמותו בכור ומעשר ופסח מנין ת"ל דם דם

Come and hear: If [the priest] sprinkled [it] 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 burnt-offering were mixed, in which case as soon as he sprinkles above, it becomes a residue, yet he teaches, 'both agree that he must re-sprinkle [it] below', which proves that the place of the burnt-offering is the place of the residue? - When R. Isaac b. Joseph came, he said: In the West 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. Said Abaye to him: Yet let the master say, 'e.g., where it was mixed with a residue'? perhaps this is what you would inform us: Even on the view that the residue is indispensable, yet if some of it is lacking it does not matter? Said Raba Tosfa'ah 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? - 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. <br>

Explore quoting%20commentary for Zevachim 162:3. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.