Welcome to chapter 8, Mishnah 2. We are continuing to discuss mixtures where a valid sacrifice is mixed up with other animals. In the previous mishnah, we dealt with combinations of valid and invalid animals, and in the mishnah before us, we will deal with different sacrifices, each of which is valid on its own, that were mixed up with each other.
Sacrifices with sacrifices of the same kind:
The first case: Two animals that were both designated for an olah offering, one belonging to Reuven and the other to Shimon, were mixed up with each other. "The same kind" means two sacrifices of the same type - two olah offerings - as opposed to an olah and a shelamim offering. There is no doubt here regarding the identity of the sacrifice, but only regarding ownership: it is not known which one belongs to Reuven and which to Shimon. Regarding this, the mishnah states: "Zeh yakriv leshem mi shehu, vezeh yakriv leshem mi shehu" - the kohen offers both animals as olah offerings, and says that each one should be credited to its true owner: if this one is Reuven's - for Reuven, and if it is Shimon's - for Shimon. Since this condition was made from the start, there is no difficulty.
The problem of semichah:
The difficulty is that in almost all sacrifices there is an obligation of semichah: the owner placing his hands and pressing with all his strength on the head of the animal - an independent requirement, regardless of confession. Now, pressing one's weight onto a consecrated animal that is not his own sacrifice is forbidden due to me'ilah (misappropriation of consecrated property), similar to riding a consecrated animal. Hence the problem: when Reuven leans on one of the animals, perhaps it belongs to Shimon, making his action forbidden.
The simplest way to explain the mishnah is that it is dealing with women, who are exempt from semichah by a Scriptural decree: the two olah offerings do not belong to Reuven and Shimon but, for example, to Rachel and Leah. However, if we are dealing with two men, who cannot lean on an animal that might not be theirs, a different solution is needed. Even though semichah does not invalidate the offering - after the fact, an olah that was not leaned upon is valid - initially it is an absolute requirement, and therefore an alternative method is established here, of the type that will appear later in the mishnah: the animals are left until a blemish occurs in each of them, and then their sanctity is transferred onto money with which new animals are bought, thus eliminating the doubt. The details of this will be explained shortly.
Sacrifices with sacrifices of a different kind:
"Kodashim bekodashim min beshe'eino mino" - two valid sacrifices that were mixed up, and their identity is of two different kinds of sacrifices. Reuven designated two animals, one for an olah offering and the other for a shelamim offering, and the animals were mixed up, and again he does not know which one to bring for the olah and which for the shelamim. The ruling is "Yir'u ad sheyista'avu" - the two animals graze until a blemish occurs in each of them that invalidates them from being sacrificed, and then it is permitted to redeem their sanctity onto money and buy new animals with it.
The mishnah continues: "Veyimakaru, veyavi bidmei hayafah shebahen mimin zeh uvidmei hayafah shebahen mimin zeh, veyafsid hamotar mibeito" - and this is how these matters are explained:
The two animals, in which a blemish has occurred, are sold: one for a hundred and the second for two hundred - three hundred in total, which are placed together.
It is not possible to buy an animal with this money, since one of the animals had the sanctity of an olah and the second had the sanctity of a shelamim, and it is not known which was which. Therefore, the owner adds from his own pocket up to a total of four hundred - two hundred for each kind.
He says: All of the sanctity of the olah in the money shall transfer onto these two hundred, and all of the sanctity of the shelamim in the money shall transfer onto the other two hundred.
With each of the sums he buys an animal, and he brings a new olah and a new shelamim in accordance with the law.
And why did the mishnah use the term "the better of them"? Because the full sum must be dedicated to that kind of sacrifice, and it is not known which kind each of the animals was - perhaps a shelamim and perhaps an olah. Therefore, one must assume for each of them that it was the expensive one, the better one, worth two hundred, and spend two hundred on each of the two new animals. It turns out that what was sold for three hundred requires an expenditure of four hundred, and the owner loses one hundred - the addition that was required of him. This is "Veyafsid hamotar mibeito" - he loses the remainder from his house.
And back to a mixture of the same kind:
That same method is required in the first case, when two offerings of the same type belonging to two different owners became mixed up, and the owners are men. Two men brought Shelamim offerings, and the Shelamim became mixed up; since they cannot perform semichah, they must sell both Shelamim offerings. If they were sold for one hundred and two hundred, three hundred are placed together; and since each one is considered to be worth two hundred, each one transfers the sanctity of his own animal, whichever it is, onto two hundred new coins, and buys a new offering with them. They divide the three hundred between them, one hundred and fifty to each, and the remaining fifty, each one pays from his own pocket.
"Nis'arvu bevchor uvemaaser" - if they became mixed with a bechor and a maaser:
Now the Mishnah discusses a mixture where at least one of the animals in it is a bechor or a maaser. A bechor is the first male born to an animal, and it is given to a kohen; animal maaser is every tenth animal of the animals born in that year, and it is brought as an offering and eaten by the owners. In these two offerings, the sanctity and the restrictions remain even after a blemish has fallen upon them. The bechor becomes sanctified by the very fact of being a first male and it goes to the kohen, and the kohen merits to eat it; the only question is whether it must be offered first: if it is unblemished - yes, and if it has a blemish - no. In any case, even though it is permitted to be eaten, the other things are forbidden with it: one may not treat it in a degrading manner, one may not work with it, and one may not slaughter it in a slaughterhouse, and the like.
Hence the point of the Mishnah: if two animals became mixed up, one a Shelamim and the other a bechor, it is not possible to take the route of grazing until a blemish falls and selling, since a bechor is not sold. Therefore the Mishnah says: "Yir'u ad she'yista'avu veyei'achlu kevechor uchemaaser" - the animals graze until a blemish falls in each of them, and then, instead of selling them, both are eaten as if they were a bechor or a maaser. To explain in detail: the owner waits until a blemish falls in both of them, transfers the sanctity of the Shelamim - according to the value of the more expensive of the two - onto money, and with it buys a new Shelamim; and he eats the two animals in his possession as bechoros, meaning he treats them with sanctity: he does not slaughter them in a butcher shop and does not use them for mundane purposes, and the like. Thus he receives the Shelamim that he is obligated in, and treats the bechor, wherever it is, according to the law of a bechor. And the same applies to maaser.
Which offerings cannot become mixed up:
The final point in the Mishnah is a halachic note: "Hakol yecholin lehisaarev chutz min hachatas umin ha'asham" - all can become mixed up except for a Chatas and an Asham. One can find scenarios where every type of offering becomes mixed with every other type - for example, even though Olah offerings are usually males, a person can volunteer a female, and the like. But a Chatas and an Asham cannot become mixed up, because the Chatas is a goat and the Asham is a ram. Although sometimes the Asham is not a ram but rather a sheep in its first year, it is nevertheless a male sheep, as opposed to the Chatas which is a goat and almost always a female. Therefore, these two types will never become mixed up, and with the rest of the offerings one can come up with scenarios where they become mixed up.
In summary: In this Mishnah we learned about cases of valid offerings that became mixed up with each other: a type with its own type - each one is offered for the sake of its true owners, provided there is no obligation of semichah (such as with women), and if they were men they take the route of selling and transferring the sanctity; a type with a different type - "they graze until they become blemished," they are sold, and with the money of the better of them he brings from each type, and loses the remainder from his pocket; a mixture with a bechor or maaser - "they graze until they become blemished and they are eaten like a bechor and like a maaser," since the bechor is not sold; and finally, all can become mixed up except for the Chatas and the Asham, which due to the difference between them do not usually become mixed up.