We are starting the eighth chapter, Mishnah 1. The topic of the chapter: an animal dedicated to be a sacrifice - let us say it was dedicated as an olah - that became mixed up with other animals. What is the law of the mixture, and how do we deal with this situation?
The first Mishnah discusses three cases:
A mixture with an animal that is forbidden in benefit - an animal from which one may not derive any benefit at all. In this scenario, there is no solution to the problem: the mixture is left to die. Nothing may be sacrificed, lest the invalid sacrifice be offered, and there is no way out of this.
A mixture with an animal that is permitted in benefit but invalid for a sacrifice - economic benefit can be derived from it, but it may not be offered. Once a mixture has been created, it may not be used, lest the invalid one be sacrificed; therefore, we wait until the animals develop a blemish, and then sell them - each of them or all of them - and with the money received, replacement sacrifices are bought and brought, since once a blemish occurs in an animal, the sanctity of the sacrifice transfers to the money.
A mixture with a chullin animal - we do not know which one is the true sacrifice, but we can find a second person who needs the same type of sacrifice, and bring two sacrifices of the same kind, and say: "One of these is Reuven's olah and one is Shimon's olah." We do not know which is for which, and it does not matter: they are brought for whoever is fitting to bring them.
This is the general overview of the Mishnah. Now let us look at the details of the cases.
The first case: A mixture with an animal forbidden in benefit:
The Mishnah cites two cases: a chatas - one of the dying chatas offerings, chatas sacrifices whose law dictates they be left to die; and an ox to be stoned - an animal that killed a person and was sentenced to death in court. Both of these are forbidden in benefit, and no benefit whatsoever may be derived from them. Therefore, even one in ten thousand: if a person dedicated ten thousand animals for olah offerings, and the ten thousand and first animal became mixed up with them, and it is one of the dying chatas offerings or an ox to be stoned - they must all die. The entire mixture, whether it numbers two or two million, is left to die.
The dying chatas offerings - five cases:
It is a halachah that in certain scenarios, the animal is not brought as a chatas, but is rather placed in a room without food until it dies, and there is nothing more to do about the matter. There are five cases, and they come up several times throughout the Talmud:
The offspring of a chatas - an animal dedicated as a chatas gave birth: the new offspring is left to die.
The exchange of a chatas - one who makes a substitution and seeks to exchange the chatas for another animal: the exchange is also left to die, as there is no possibility of sacrificing it.
A chatas whose owner died - the person who dedicated the animal for his chatas died. We do not bring an animal for another person, and the owner is no longer here, so therefore the chatas is left to die.
A chatas whose owner achieved atonement with another - he separated a sheep for a chatas and it was lost, he separated another sheep and brought it as a chatas, and afterward the first one was found. What should he do with it? It is too late - he has already achieved atonement with another animal, and therefore it is left to die.
A chatas whose year has passed - its first year passed, and it is too old to be sacrificed as a chatas; therefore it is left to die.
In these five cases there is no remedy, and this is the halachah: the animal is put into a room until it dies, and that is that.
The ox to be stoned:
The exact translation of the phrase: an ox that is condemned to be stoned. An animal that killed a Jew is put on trial, and two witnesses testify against it. And as we have seen, there is no difference between an ox and a rooster: any animal that killed a Jew - a trial is conducted for it, and the court (a Sanhedrin of twenty-three) sentences it to death and it is stoned. Once it is sentenced to death, it is considered an ox to be stoned, an animal destined to be executed, and therefore it becomes completely forbidden in benefit. Once it becomes mixed with others, none of them may be sacrificed, lest the one he sacrifices is the ox to be stoned, and therefore they are all left to die.
Technically, it would have been possible to leave them to graze, without putting them in a room with no food; but this is not done out of concern for a mishap: if they remain for an extended period, a mishap might occur, and the mixture could become further mixed up. Therefore, they are put to death sooner rather than later. This is what the Mishnah says: Even if one is in ten thousand, they must all die, and all of them are unfit for use.
Why does the majority not nullify it?
The basic rule from the Torah is that we follow the majority - "to incline after the majority": in a mixture containing two types of components, the status of everything in the mixture is determined by the majority component. According to this, if we had two valid olah offerings and a third animal of unknown status became mixed up with them, there would be room to say that the entire mixture is treated as a valid olah offering. This is the position on a Torah level.
On a rabbinic level, there are types of things that are not nullified - they cannot lose their identity in a mixture, because they are too important and significant in the eyes of the Sages. A classic example of this is a beriah, a complete creature: a complete sheep, goat, or cow. The complete sheep is not nullified and does not lose its identity, due to its importance. Therefore, if one sheep became mixed in - we no longer determine the status of the entire mixture based on the majority, because this significant animal is mixed into it. Hence the words of the Mishnah: even if it is one in ten thousand - there is no nullification, no nullification of status and identity into the majority of the mixture, when dealing with something as significant as a whole animal - alive, or even dead for that matter, except that here we are dealing with a live animal. Therefore, they must all die: they are all left to die in a room with no food. These are the two cases in the first series.
The second case: An animal that is permitted for benefit but invalid for a sacrifice:
In this series, the animal is permitted for benefit, and there is no restriction on deriving economic benefit from it; however, these animals are invalid to serve as a sacrifice. Therefore, an olah that was designated as an olah and became mixed with another sheep, and we do not know which is which: since the other sheep is unfit for sacrifice, neither of the animals can be sacrificed, and we must turn to plan B - leave them out to pasture until they develop a blemish, sell them, and with the proceeds buy a new replacement, an olah or any other sacrifice.
And this is the language of the Mishnah: "Nisarvu beshor shena'avdah bo aveirah" - an ox that was consecrated as an olah or shelamim and became mixed with another ox with which a sin was committed (and we will soon see the list of sins). "O sheheemis es ha'adam al pi eid echad o al pi be'alim" - or that no sin was committed with it, but it itself killed a person, except that it is not put to death and is not actually liable to stoning.
These two cases are:
Based on one witness - one witness says: "Reuven's ox is the one that killed Shimon." The ox is not put to death, as there are not two witnesses here and we do not convict based on one witness; nevertheless, Reuven's ox is forbidden to serve as a sacrifice.
Based on the owners - Reuven himself comes to the beis din and says: "My ox killed Shimon, what now?". In this case, the ox is not put to death, but it is no longer valid to serve as a sacrifice.
Why does the admission of the ox's owner change the situation? Rashi learns that the nature of killing the ox in this case is fundamentally a fine, a penalty imposed by the beis din, and there is a rule that "one who admits to a fine is exempt" - someone who willingly admits to a fine is exempt from it. This is how Rashi learned, and the Bartenura followed suit.
Tosafos wonders about this: there is no source that killing the animal is a fine, and who says it is a punishment? Killing the animal is a different matter. Therefore, Tosafos learned that the reason is that the owner of the ox is an invalid witness: he is testifying about something that is his property and close to him, he is an interested party with a personal interest, and he is invalid for testimony; therefore, his admission does not allow for the killing. In all these cases, the animal is not forbidden for benefit - there is no restriction on deriving benefit from it - rather, it may not be used as a sacrifice.
The list of sins and invalidations:
"Barovea ubanirvea" - an animal that participated in an act of relations with a human: rovea - the animal is male and the human is female; nirvea - the human is male and the animal is female. This invalidates the animal from being offered as a sacrifice. While it is true that a rovea or nirvea animal is killed when there are witnesses, here it is a case where there is only one witness, and therefore it is not killed - nevertheless, it is forbidden to use it as a sacrifice.
"Uvamuktzeh uvane'evad" - muktzeh, which usually means set aside (like on Shabbos), here means an animal designated to serve as an idol worship sacrifice. The idolaters plan to bring the sheep at midnight as a sacrifice for their idol worship, and they shear it in preparation; once it is sheared for this purpose, it is invalidated from serving as a sacrifice to God. Ne'evad - that the animal itself was worshipped: a cow that was bowed down to as a holy cow, thereby invalidating it from being offered. Usually, something directly worshipped - a statue or a book that was bowed to and worshipped in idolatry - must be destroyed, and it is forbidden to derive any benefit from it; but this law does not apply to living creatures, and therefore a live cow is not forbidden for benefit and does not require destruction, but it is certainly no longer fit to serve as a sacrifice to God.
"Etnan umechir" - two commandments derived from a single verse: "You shall not bring the fee of a prostitute or the price of a dog into the house of the Lord your God." Etnan - an animal given to a prostitute as payment for her services; mechir - an animal given in exchange for a dog, like one saying, "I will exchange my goat for your dog." The exchange is valid, but the goat that was exchanged for a dog is not fit for a sacrifice, as these are repulsive things before God. Even these are permitted for benefit - they can be sold for money - but they are not offered as sacrifices.
"Uvekila'im" - an offspring born from the crossbreeding of species, such as a goat and a sheep. This is an unusual and abnormal thing, but it can occur; if it happens, the offspring is not fit to serve as a sacrifice.
"Uvitreifah" - an animal that has a fatal defect that will kill it in the future. It is also permitted for benefit: it can be sold to a glue factory for money, or to a non-Jew for that matter, but it is forbidden for consumption, and it is also not offered as a sacrifice.
"Uveyotzei dofen" - an animal born by means of a Caesarean section, and literally: that came out from the side. The farmer, seeing that the cow was unable to give birth, cut and removed the calf from the mother's side. There is no defect in it and it is not invalid, but it may not be used as a sacrifice, according to the verse.
What is done with this mixture?
All these things are not fit for sacrifice. Therefore, the mixture is taken - the designated and approved olah offering together with the animal that became mixed up with it, which cannot be used as a sacrifice for all the reasons enumerated - and they are left to "yir'u ad sheyista'avu": to graze in the fields until they are invalidated by a blemish, such as a cataract and the like. "Yista'avu" in this context means that a blemish will befall them; its literal translation, as it is an Aramaic word, is like impure. Once a clear blemish has occurred in the animal, it is no longer fit for sacrifice - even though it is sanctified with the sanctity of an olah - it is permitted to sell it, take the money received from its sale, and buy a new olah offering with it.
"Veyimacheru veyavi bidmei hayafah shebahen me'oto hamin" - both animals are sold once a blemish has occurred in each of them.
"Me'oto hamin": when an olah that contracted a blemish is redeemed, the money received from its sale does not carry only a general and abstract sanctity, but rather the actual sanctity of an olah. Therefore, one must use the funds to buy a new olah offering, and cannot buy a shelamim offering with them.
"Bidmei hayafah shebahen": suppose that at the time the blemishes occurred in the animals, one was worth one hundred and the second was worth two hundred. He sells both of them and receives three hundred in total, but he must buy one olah - for how much? For two hundred. He must spend the higher amount between the two, because if the animal that was originally the olah is worth two hundred, this entire amount must be used to purchase a new olah.
The third case: a mixture with unblemished chullin:
An olah that was designated as an olah became mixed up with a regular cow: two cows are present, one an olah and one chullin. The chullin cow has no restrictions, and the only problem is that it cannot be brought as an olah, since perhaps it is not the one that was sanctified. The simple solution: the owner of the olah will say, "I will bring two olah offerings and sanctify the second one as well." If he does not wish to do this, he will find another person who wants to bring an olah and tell him, "One of these two animals is your olah. I do not know which, but the main point is that you acquire one of them" - and then they will bring two olah offerings, and when the kohen offers the olah he will say: for whomever it is intended, it is for him.
And this is the language of the Mishnah: "Nitarvu bechullin temimim" - if the designated sacrifice became mixed with a similar animal that is chullin, a regular animal, then "yimacheru chullin letzrichin otam min": the chullin animal is sold to a person who needs that same type of sacrifice, and two sacrifices of the same kind are offered, and the kohen will offer it with the intention that it is for whomever the sacrifice is designated, for that is how it must be.
Consequently, this is the proper way to do it, and as recalled from the law of the nine piles - the kohen is supposed to bring it this way, without a specific person in mind, and therefore there is no problem with this. However, other problems may arise, such as regarding semichah - performing the process of semichah and placing weight upon the animal.
In summary: This Mishnah teaches three cases regarding a sacrifice that became mixed with other animals. A mixture with an animal from which benefit is forbidden (one of the chatas offerings that are left to die, or an ox condemned to be stoned) - all of them must die, even if it is one in ten thousand, because a complete creature is too significant to be nullified in a majority. A mixture with an animal from which benefit is permitted but which is invalid for a sacrifice (an animal with which a sin was committed, an animal that killed a person based on one witness or based on the owner, a rovea and nirvea, a muktzeh and ne'evad, an etnan and mechir, a kilayim, a treifah, and a yotzei dofen) - they must graze until they become blemished, they are sold, and a sacrifice of the same kind is brought with the value of the better of them. And a mixture with unblemished chullin - the chullin is sold to someone who needs the same kind, and two sacrifices of the same kind are offered.
The matter of semichah in this mixture will be left for the next Mishnah.