In Zevachim chapter 8, Mishnah 10, we continue with the topic of mixtures of blood. The first two cases in the Mishnah are simple:
"Hanisanin matanah achas shenisarvu benisanin matanah achas" - blood requiring application on one wall that became mixed with the blood of a different type of offering, which also requires application on only one wall: maaser, bechor, or pesach. For example, maaser blood that became mixed with bechor blood. The halachah is: "Yinasnu matanah achas" - they apply it once, and that is sufficient.
"Matan arba bematan arba" - blood requiring application on four walls that became mixed with blood that also requires application on four walls. The halachah is: "Yinasnu bematan arba" - they apply it on the four walls with two sprinklings, one on the northeast corner and one on the southwest corner, and thus it is done properly for both offerings.
Clarification on the concept of "matan arba":
One might have thought that the Mishnah is dealing with chatas blood, which is the only one that actually requires four applications - four sprinklings. But this is not the case: the chatas was discussed in the previous Mishnah, where we dealt with blood applied above the line as opposed to below the line, and this is not the simple meaning in our Mishnah here. Here, the meaning of four is four walls, and we are talking about the rest of the offerings - the asham, the olah, the shelamim, and the todah - which require "two which are four", two applications that spread over four walls. In other words, two offerings from among olah, asham, shelamim, and todah whose blood became mixed.
The Bartenura's approach in establishing the case:
The Bartenura learns that the Mishnah is not as simple as it sounds. We are not talking about one cup in which olah blood and shelamim blood became mixed, or maaser blood and bechor blood, but rather two separate cups: in one is the bechor blood and in the other the maaser blood, and it is not known which is which; or in one is olah blood and in the other shelamim blood, and it is not known which is which. The simple meaning is that they apply from both of them separately, one after the other, once or twice, and they do not combine them together.
The reason the Bartenura adopted this approach, which is not the simple reading in the Mishnah, is because our Mishnah follows the view of Rabbi Eliezer - he who said in the previous Mishnah that one should treat the blood that does not belong as if it is water. Rabbi Eliezer maintains, as Rav Ashi shows he learns from a Mishnah in tractate Parah, that there is a concept called "ein bilah": there is no guarantee that a mixture of liquid with liquid, like two types of blood in one cup, will mix completely, and therefore there is no guarantee that in every application there will be a sample from both components in the mixture.
We can illustrate this with things that are not liquid: five black marbles and five white ones that were placed in a cup and shaken together. When we take out three marbles from them and throw them on the altar, it is very possible that all three are black or that all are white, and there is no guarantee that an equal sample from both types will be obtained. The other opinion, which is the halachah, holds "yesh bilah" - the liquid mixes thoroughly, and when we take out a spoonful of blood from the mixture, half is of one type and half is of the second type.
Since Rabbi Eliezer does not hold like this opinion, and he is the one who will take a prominent place in the Mishnah before us, necessarily - according to the Bartenura's understanding - we are dealing with two separate cups that are not mixed with each other. Therefore we treat each one of them as if it could be either of the options, and we do both of them separately, one after the other.
The central case: matan arba that became mixed with matanah achas:
The first two cases are not a great novelty; the case that the Mishnah wishes to present is what is the law of blood requiring application on four walls, like olah blood, that became mixed with blood requiring application on one wall, like bechor blood. Here too the Bartenura will establish the discussion with two cups of blood, but for the sake of simplicity we will discuss one cup of mixed blood, and the law is identical.
Rabbi Eliezer says: "Yinasnu bematan arba" - they apply it on the four walls. And if you say, surely there is no permission to apply the bechor blood on the other walls, since it only belongs on one wall? To this Rabbi Eliezer responds as he stated in the previous Mishnah: we do not intend for that part of the bechor in the mixture to be an offering, but rather we treat it as if it is water, and it is not considered.
Rabbi Yehoshua, following the view of the Sages, does not accept the approach of treating it "as if it is water": one who places blood on the altar has placed blood on the altar, and if he is not supposed to do so, he is not supposed to do so. Therefore, Rabbi Yehoshua says: "Yinnasnu mattanah achas" - they are placed one time on one wall, and that is sufficient. And why is that sufficient? Because we have the rule that we saw in chapter 4, Mishnah 1: "Kol hanittanin al mizbeach hachitzon shenesanan bemattanah achas - kipper" - that is to say, all eight regular offerings, if their blood reached the altar even one time, they have achieved atonement. Rabbi Yehoshua says: Why should we get ourselves into the problem of placing it more than once and create the possibility of doing something improper - placing blood that does not belong on four walls onto the four walls - when, after the fact, one placement is sufficient?
The Dispute Regarding Bal Tosif and Bal Tigra:
Rabbi Eliezer comes to convince Rabbi Yehoshua. According to his own view, the discussion is not relevant in the first place, since there is no problem applying additional blood to the other sides due to treating it as if it were water. But now he says: Even according to your view, Rabbi Yehoshua, that you do not accept treating the blood as water when there is no intention for the blood placed on the altar to be the blood of an offering - even according to your view, you must do as I say and place it on the four walls, since you have a mixture of blood before you and one of the bloods requires placement on the four walls.
Rabbi Eliezer said to him: "Vaharei hu over al bal tigra" - but surely he transgresses the prohibition against detracting. This prohibition originates in a general verse that does not deal with offerings (Devarim 13:1): "The entire word that I command you, that shall you observe to do; you shall not add to it and you shall not detract from it."
Bal tosif (do not add): If the Holy One, Blessed is He, commanded us to take the Four Species, one cannot decide that it would be nice to add another species to the mix. One who adds - transgresses bal tosif.
Bal tigra (do not detract): One who does not have four strings on his tzitzis and attaches only three - detracts and diminishes from the mitzvah, and transgresses bal tigra.
Here too: The mitzvah is to place the blood four times, on four walls; and anyone who does not place the blood of the olah on the four walls - detracts from the Torah's mitzvah and transgresses bal tigra.
Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: "Vaharei hu over al bal tosif" - but surely he transgresses the prohibition against adding. I am stuck between two prohibitions: if I do not place it on four - there is a problem of bal tigra; and if I do place it - there is a problem of bal tosif, since I am about to place blood that belongs only on one wall onto all four walls. And since there is no way out anyway, why should we bother to commit the prohibition of four sprinklings when one placement is sufficient after the fact?
Rabbi Eliezer said to him: "Lo ne'emar bal tosif ella keshehu be'atzmo" - one does not transgress bal tosif except when the addition to the mitzvah is done without any mitigating mitzvah factor. Here, a mitigating mitzvah factor exists: we do not place the blood on four walls in order to add to the one wall that the Torah stated, but rather because through this very placement, the placement of the blood of the olah on the four walls is fulfilled, in the place where it must be placed.
This is true even when we have two separate cups before us: although it can be argued that the cup about to be placed on the four walls is a cup of bechor blood, which belongs only on one wall; nevertheless, there is a mitigating mitzvah factor here - since we are in doubt and do not know where it belongs, we place it on the four walls to be on the safe side. And this is not a problem of bal tosif, since it is done for the sake of a mitzvah and not for another reason.
Note: Why do we not say here "aseh docheh lo ta'aseh"?
There is a rule that in a clash between a positive commandment (aseh) and a negative commandment (lo ta'aseh) - the positive commandment overrides the negative commandment, such as a bris milah on Shabbos or offerings in the Temple on Shabbos. This rule is true, but it is not relevant here, since it is only stated when the structure of the mitzvah is such that it is impossible to fulfill the mitzvah without committing the transgression. Here, no one commanded that the cups be mixed up; it was possible to avoid it in the first place, and once they were mixed up - it is the person who caused the problem. Furthermore, after the fact, one fulfills the obligation with sprinkling on one wall, and one cannot say that they must fulfill the mitzvah by sprinkling on four walls when there is no need to do so. Therefore, we do not play the "aseh docheh lo ta'aseh" card here. Rather, Rabbi Eliezer says that the rule of bal tosif does not apply when the intention is not to add to the Torah, but rather to perform a different mitzvah action.
Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: "Lo ne'emar bal tigra ella keshehu be'atzmo" - the prohibition of bal tigra also does not apply except when the detracting is done without a mitigating mitzvah factor, and I have an excellent mitigating mitzvah factor: I am not placing bechor blood on four walls, for that is its law. If so, I am stuck between the two things, and it is better to do nothing: why should we bother the person to commit a transgression or perform an additional action, when what I am doing is the best scenario? I have no gain at all from placing the blood on the four walls, even if it is true that there is no bal tosif and bal tigra here.
Rabbi Yehoshua also says: I am not convinced at all that this is the case. I have heard your words - it is possible that you are right that there is no problem of bal tosif and therefore also no problem of bal tigra when there are extenuating circumstances of a mitzvah, and it is possible that there is. Therefore, either we violate both or we violate neither. You suggest that we violate neither, and it is possible that you are right; but if we violate both, I certainly will not apply the blood to the four walls, but rather one application is sufficient.
Rabbi Yehoshua also said, alongside the possibility that there is bal tosif and bal tigra even when there are extenuating circumstances of a mitzvah: "Keshenatata - avarta al bal tosif ve'asita ma'aseh beyadecha" - The one who applies blood to the four walls violates bal tosif through a proactive action, with his own hands, in the sense of arising and taking action, and dirties his hands with a transgression. "Ucheshelo natata - avarta al bal tigra velo asita ma'aseh beyadecha" - The one who chooses to apply blood to only one wall indeed violates bal tigra, since he applied one instead of four, but he did so passively, without any proactive activity, sitting with folded hands.
Meaning: Even if it is highly likely that there is an issue of bal tosif and bal tigra here, and if I must choose which of them to violate - it is better to sit with folded hands and violate bal tigra than to actively violate bal tosif, which is far more severe.
The halachah: The halachah follows Rabbi Yehoshua and the Sages - we make only one application and not four, and we do not accept the approach of treating the blood that does not belong as if it were water. Even though the practical halachah concludes that bal tosif is not a problem when there is no intention to add, meaning when there are extenuating circumstances of a mitzvah, the point is that since post facto one fulfills the obligation with one application, it is certainly better that the transgression be done passively - just as in the previous Mishnah we left the blood and did not apply it, waited until sunset took effect, and poured it into the drain. Here too, it is better to do nothing than to actively commit an act forbidden by the Torah.
In summary: In this Mishnah we learned the laws of mixtures of blood: one application mixed with one application - one application is applied; four applications mixed with four applications - they are applied to the four walls in two sprinklings; and the central case, four applications mixed with one application, about which Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua disagreed. We discussed the approach of the Bartenura that this involves two separate cups, due to Rabbi Eliezer's view that there is no mixing, and the flow of the dispute regarding the parameters of bal tosif and bal tigra - leading to the conclusion that the halachah follows Rabbi Yehoshua, that one application is sufficient, and that a passive transgression is preferable to a proactive act.