Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

July 1, 2018 | 讬状讞 讘转诪讜讝 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua v鈥 Elana Malka. "讛 谞转谉 讜讛 诇拽讞. 讬讛讬 砖诐 讛 诪讘讜专讱"

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah shleima of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

Zevachim 78

Study Guide Zevachim 78-79. Reish Lakish brings a case of someone eating pigul and notar at the same time and says that one can’t get lashes for that. The gemara聽makes 3 assumptions about Reish Lakish’s opinion聽but then questions one of them and rejects it.聽The gemara聽also questions Reish Lakish based on our mishna聽and concludes that our mishna聽holds by Rabbi Yehuda and Reish Lakish holds like the rabbis.聽The gemara then brings a contradiction between 2 sources relating to Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion. The argument mentioned at the end of the mishna聽between Rabbi Eliezer and tanna kamma is also explained – 2 opinions are brought to explain what is the basis of their argument.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讚诐 诪讘讟诇 讚诐

Rabbi Yehuda says: Blood does not nullify blood. Therefore, the priest presents the blood of the mixture on the altar.

谞转注专讘 讘讚诐 驻住讜诇讬谉 讬砖驻讱 诇讗诪讛 讘讚诐 讛转诪爪讬转 讬砖驻讱 诇讗诪讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讻砖讬专 讗诐 诇讗 谞诪诇讱 讜谞转谉 讻砖专

If blood fit for presentation was mixed with the blood of unfit offerings, there is no remedy. Therefore, the entire mixture shall be poured into the drain running through the Temple courtyard. Likewise, if blood fit for presentation was mixed with blood of exudate, i.e., that exudes from the neck after the initial spurt following its slaughter concludes, which is unfit for presentation, the entire mixture shall be poured into the Temple courtyard drain. Rabbi Eliezer deems this mixture fit for presentation. Even according to the first tanna, if the priest did not consult the authorities and placed the blood on the altar, the offering is fit.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖谞驻诇讜 诪讬诐 诇转讜讱 讚诐 讗讘诇 谞驻诇 讚诐 诇转讜讱 诪讬诐 专讗砖讜谉 专讗砖讜谉 讘讟诇

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that in a case where water became mixed with the blood of an offering, if the mixture has the appearance of blood it is fit, despite the fact that there is more water than blood. Concerning this Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: They taught this halakha only in a case where the water fell into the blood. But in a case where the blood fell into the water, the first drop of blood, and then the next first drop of blood, is nullified in the water, i.e., each drop is nullified in turn. Consequently, the mixture is unfit for presentation, regardless of whether it has the appearance of blood.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讜诇注谞讬谉 讻讬住讜讬 讗讬谞讜 讻谉 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讚讞讜讬 讘诪爪讜转

Rav Pappa says: But with regard to the mitzva of covering the blood of birds or undomesticated animals that are slaughtered, it is not so. In this case, even if the blood fell into water, the mitzva of covering applies to it, provided that the mixture has the appearance of blood. The blood is not nullified by the water because there is no permanent rejection with regard to mitzvot, i.e., its nullification was merely temporary, but once there is enough blood in the water, it reassumes its status of blood.

讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛驻讬讙讜诇 讜讛谞讜转专 讜讛讟诪讗 砖讘诇诇谉 讝讛 讘讝讛 讜讗讻诇谉 驻讟讜专 讗讬 讗驻砖专 砖诇讗 讬专讘讛 诪讬谉 注诇 讞讘讬专讜 讜讬讘讟诇谞讜

搂 The Gemara continues to discuss various mixtures. Reish Lakish says: With regard to meat of piggul, i.e., an offering that was sacrificed with the intent to consume it beyond its designated time, and meat of notar, an offering whose designated time for consumption has passed, and ritually impure sacrificial meat, each of which was an olive-bulk, the minimum size for which one is liable to be flogged for its consumption, that one mixed together and ate them as a mixture, he is exempt from being flogged. The reason is that it is impossible that while eating them one type would not be greater than another type and nullify it. Since it is unknown which prohibition will nullify the other, one cannot forewarn the offender as to which prohibition he is about to transgress, and in order to be liable to be flogged one must receive a forewarning concerning a specific prohibition.

砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转诇转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讬住讜专讬谉 诪讘讟诇讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讘专讜讘 诇讗讜 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛转专讗转 住驻拽 诇讗 砖诪讛 讛转专讗讛

The Gemara comments: Conclude three halakhot from this statement of Reish Lakish. Conclude from it that prohibitions nullify one another in a majority, just as permitted items nullify a prohibited item. And conclude from it that the halakha that when a prohibited food imparts flavor to a permitted substance it prohibits it even when the permitted substance is the majority does not apply by Torah law, but by rabbinic law. The proof is that if this principle were applied by Torah law, then one should be flogged for this consumption, as the meats are of different types and therefore one of them must have imparted flavor to the other. And finally, conclude from it that an uncertain forewarning, e.g., one in which the witnesses cannot be sure which prohibition the transgressor is about to violate, is not considered a forewarning.

诪转讬讘 专讘讗 注砖讛 注讬住讛 诪谉 讞讬讟讬谉 讜诪谉 讗讜专讝 讗诐 讬砖 讘讛 讟注诐 讚讙谉 讞讬讬讘转 讘讞诇讛 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚专讜讘讗 讗讜专讝

Concerning the inference that the halakha that when a prohibited food imparts flavor to a permitted substance it prohibits it even when the permitted substance is the majority does not apply by Torah law, Rava raises an objection from a mishna (岣lla 3:7): In a case where one prepared a dough from wheat and from rice, if this mixture has the taste of wheat, it is obligated in the separation of 岣lla, a portion of dough that must be given to a priest (see Numbers 15:17鈥21). 岣lla is separated only from one of the five species of grain, not rice. Rava explains his objection: And this halakha applies even though the majority of the mixture is flour from rice. Apparently, the fact that the wheat imparts flavor to the dough renders it obligated in 岣lla even if the wheat is the minority.

诪讚专讘谞谉 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 讘讛 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘驻住讞

The Gemara answers: The obligation to set aside 岣lla in this case applies by rabbinic law, not by Torah law. Rava raises a difficulty: If so, say the latter clause of that same mishna: A person can fulfill his obligation with matza from this type of dough on the first night of Passover. Since by Torah law this mitzva must be fulfilled with matza made from a grain, evidently the principle that one substance that imparts flavor to a greater amount of a different substance affects its status applies by Torah law.

讗诇讗 诪讬谉 讘砖讗讬谞讜 诪讬谞讜 讘讟注诪讗 诪讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 讘专讜讘讗

Rather, one must say that according to Reish Lakish, in a case of a type of food mixed with food not of its own type, such as wheat flour and rice flour, whose tastes are different, the status is determined by the flavor. Therefore, if the dough tastes like wheat, it has the halakha of a dough made from wheat. But if it is a type of food mixed with food of its own type, e.g., a mixture of piggul and notar meat, which is the case addressed by Reish Lakish, the status of the mixture is determined by the majority.

讜谞砖注专 诪讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 讻诪讬谉 讘砖讗讬谞讜 诪讬谞讜 讚转谞谉 谞转注专讘 讘讬讬谉 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讜讗 诪讬诐 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇讬讬谉 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讜讗 诪讬诐

The Gemara suggests: But let us estimate in a case of a type of food mixed with food of its own type as though it were a mixture of a type of food mixed with food not of its own type, and if so, the minority is not nullified if it is substantial enough to impart flavor to the majority. As we learned in the mishna: If the blood of an offering was mixed with wine, one considers it as though it is water. Although blood and wine certainly have different flavors, in the case of the mishna the determinative factor is not the taste of the mixture, but the appearance. Since they share the same appearance, they are considered a case of a substance in contact with the same type of substance. What, is it not correct to explain the mishna as stating that one views the wine as though it is water, i.e., a substance of a different type, and if the mixture would have the appearance of blood if the wine were water it is fit for presentation, despite the fact that the blood is not the majority?

诇讗 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇讚诐 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讜讗 诪讬诐 讗讬 讛讻讬 讘讟诇 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara answers: No, this is not the explanation of the mishna. Rather, it means that one views the blood as though it is water, i.e., it is unfit for presentation, since it is as though one presented water on the altar. The Gemara questions this explanation: If so, the tanna of the mishna should have said: The blood is nullified.

讜注讜讚 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讜讗 讬讬谉 讗讚讜诐 讗诐 讚讬讛讛 诪专讗讛讜 讻砖专

And furthermore, it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Mikvaot 7:4): With regard to a ritually impure bucket containing a certain amount of white wine or milk that one immersed in a ritual bath, Rabbi Yehuda says: Although the appearance of the white wine or milk is not discernible in the water of the ritual bath that enters the bucket, one views the white wine or milk as though it is red wine, and makes the following determination: If its conjectured red appearance would pale due to the water that enters the bucket, the wine or milk is nullified by the water. Therefore, the act of purification is fit, and the bucket is ritually pure.

讜讗诐 诇讗讜 驻住讜诇

Rabbi Yehuda continues: But if its conjectured red appearance would not pale, the act of purification is unfit, and the bucket remains ritually impure. This is a case in which a substance was mixed with another substance of similar appearance, as white wine and milk have a similar appearance to the water, and yet it is treated as a mixture of a substance with a different type of substance, and it is not nullified in a majority.

转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讚诇讬 砖讬砖 讘讜 讬讬谉 诇讘谉 讗讜 讞诇讘 讜讛讟讘讬诇讜 讛讜诇讻讬谉 讗讞专 讛专讜讘 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讜讗 讬讬谉 讗讚讜诐 讗诐 讚讬讛讛 诪专讗讛讜 讻砖专 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 驻住讜诇

The Gemara explains: One cannot cite a proof from the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as this is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, and the ruling follows the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. As it is taught in that baraita: With regard to a ritually impure bucket in which there is white wine or milk, and one immersed it in a ritual bath, one follows the majority, i.e., if the majority of the contents of the bucket is now water from the ritual bath, it is pure. Rabbi Yehuda says: One views the white wine or milk as though it is red wine and makes the following determination: If its conjectured red appearance would pale due to the water that enters the bucket, the act of purification is fit, and the bucket is ritually pure. But if its conjectured red appearance would not pale, the act of purification is unfit, and the bucket remains ritually impure.

讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讚诇讬 砖讛讜讗 诪诇讗 专讜拽讬谉 讜讛讟讘讬诇讜 讻讗讬诇讜 诇讗 讟讘诇

And the Gemara raises a contradiction to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda from a mishna (see Mikvaot 10:6): If one had an impure bucket that is filled with spittle and one immersed it in a ritual bath, the spittle is considered an interposition between the water of the ritual bath and that of the bucket, and therefore it is as though he did not immerse it.

诪讬 专讙诇讬诐 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 讻讗讬诇讜 讛谉 诪讬诐

If the impure bucket was full of urine and he immersed it, although urine is slightly different in appearance than water, one views the urine as though it is water, and therefore once the urine is in contact with the ritual bath it is considered connected to the water, and it is not an interposition preventing the bucket from becoming ritually pure.

诪诇讗 诪讬 讞讟讗转 注讚 砖讬专讘讜 讛诪讬诐 注诇 诪讬 讞讟讗转

The mishna continues: If the impure bucket was filled with water of purification, the bucket is not purified until the water of the ritual bath that enters the bucket becomes greater in quantity than the water of purification it contains, thereby nullifying it in a majority.

诪讗谉 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 专讜讗讬谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜拽转谞讬 讚住讙讬 诇讬讛 讘专讜讘讗

The Gemara explains the contradiction: Whom have you heard who accepts this reasoning of: One views, which appears in this mishna with regard to urine? It is Rabbi Yehuda, as stated in the baraita cited above. And yet the mishna teaches that a majority suffices to nullify the water of purification that became mixed with water, and it is not considered as though it is red wine. This conflicts with the ruling of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to white wine and milk.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗

Abaye says: This is not difficult;

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua v鈥 Elana Malka. "讛 谞转谉 讜讛 诇拽讞. 讬讛讬 砖诐 讛 诪讘讜专讱"

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah shleima of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Zevachim 78

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Zevachim 78

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讚诐 诪讘讟诇 讚诐

Rabbi Yehuda says: Blood does not nullify blood. Therefore, the priest presents the blood of the mixture on the altar.

谞转注专讘 讘讚诐 驻住讜诇讬谉 讬砖驻讱 诇讗诪讛 讘讚诐 讛转诪爪讬转 讬砖驻讱 诇讗诪讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讻砖讬专 讗诐 诇讗 谞诪诇讱 讜谞转谉 讻砖专

If blood fit for presentation was mixed with the blood of unfit offerings, there is no remedy. Therefore, the entire mixture shall be poured into the drain running through the Temple courtyard. Likewise, if blood fit for presentation was mixed with blood of exudate, i.e., that exudes from the neck after the initial spurt following its slaughter concludes, which is unfit for presentation, the entire mixture shall be poured into the Temple courtyard drain. Rabbi Eliezer deems this mixture fit for presentation. Even according to the first tanna, if the priest did not consult the authorities and placed the blood on the altar, the offering is fit.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖谞驻诇讜 诪讬诐 诇转讜讱 讚诐 讗讘诇 谞驻诇 讚诐 诇转讜讱 诪讬诐 专讗砖讜谉 专讗砖讜谉 讘讟诇

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that in a case where water became mixed with the blood of an offering, if the mixture has the appearance of blood it is fit, despite the fact that there is more water than blood. Concerning this Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: They taught this halakha only in a case where the water fell into the blood. But in a case where the blood fell into the water, the first drop of blood, and then the next first drop of blood, is nullified in the water, i.e., each drop is nullified in turn. Consequently, the mixture is unfit for presentation, regardless of whether it has the appearance of blood.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讜诇注谞讬谉 讻讬住讜讬 讗讬谞讜 讻谉 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讚讞讜讬 讘诪爪讜转

Rav Pappa says: But with regard to the mitzva of covering the blood of birds or undomesticated animals that are slaughtered, it is not so. In this case, even if the blood fell into water, the mitzva of covering applies to it, provided that the mixture has the appearance of blood. The blood is not nullified by the water because there is no permanent rejection with regard to mitzvot, i.e., its nullification was merely temporary, but once there is enough blood in the water, it reassumes its status of blood.

讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛驻讬讙讜诇 讜讛谞讜转专 讜讛讟诪讗 砖讘诇诇谉 讝讛 讘讝讛 讜讗讻诇谉 驻讟讜专 讗讬 讗驻砖专 砖诇讗 讬专讘讛 诪讬谉 注诇 讞讘讬专讜 讜讬讘讟诇谞讜

搂 The Gemara continues to discuss various mixtures. Reish Lakish says: With regard to meat of piggul, i.e., an offering that was sacrificed with the intent to consume it beyond its designated time, and meat of notar, an offering whose designated time for consumption has passed, and ritually impure sacrificial meat, each of which was an olive-bulk, the minimum size for which one is liable to be flogged for its consumption, that one mixed together and ate them as a mixture, he is exempt from being flogged. The reason is that it is impossible that while eating them one type would not be greater than another type and nullify it. Since it is unknown which prohibition will nullify the other, one cannot forewarn the offender as to which prohibition he is about to transgress, and in order to be liable to be flogged one must receive a forewarning concerning a specific prohibition.

砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转诇转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讬住讜专讬谉 诪讘讟诇讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讘专讜讘 诇讗讜 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛转专讗转 住驻拽 诇讗 砖诪讛 讛转专讗讛

The Gemara comments: Conclude three halakhot from this statement of Reish Lakish. Conclude from it that prohibitions nullify one another in a majority, just as permitted items nullify a prohibited item. And conclude from it that the halakha that when a prohibited food imparts flavor to a permitted substance it prohibits it even when the permitted substance is the majority does not apply by Torah law, but by rabbinic law. The proof is that if this principle were applied by Torah law, then one should be flogged for this consumption, as the meats are of different types and therefore one of them must have imparted flavor to the other. And finally, conclude from it that an uncertain forewarning, e.g., one in which the witnesses cannot be sure which prohibition the transgressor is about to violate, is not considered a forewarning.

诪转讬讘 专讘讗 注砖讛 注讬住讛 诪谉 讞讬讟讬谉 讜诪谉 讗讜专讝 讗诐 讬砖 讘讛 讟注诐 讚讙谉 讞讬讬讘转 讘讞诇讛 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚专讜讘讗 讗讜专讝

Concerning the inference that the halakha that when a prohibited food imparts flavor to a permitted substance it prohibits it even when the permitted substance is the majority does not apply by Torah law, Rava raises an objection from a mishna (岣lla 3:7): In a case where one prepared a dough from wheat and from rice, if this mixture has the taste of wheat, it is obligated in the separation of 岣lla, a portion of dough that must be given to a priest (see Numbers 15:17鈥21). 岣lla is separated only from one of the five species of grain, not rice. Rava explains his objection: And this halakha applies even though the majority of the mixture is flour from rice. Apparently, the fact that the wheat imparts flavor to the dough renders it obligated in 岣lla even if the wheat is the minority.

诪讚专讘谞谉 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 讘讛 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘驻住讞

The Gemara answers: The obligation to set aside 岣lla in this case applies by rabbinic law, not by Torah law. Rava raises a difficulty: If so, say the latter clause of that same mishna: A person can fulfill his obligation with matza from this type of dough on the first night of Passover. Since by Torah law this mitzva must be fulfilled with matza made from a grain, evidently the principle that one substance that imparts flavor to a greater amount of a different substance affects its status applies by Torah law.

讗诇讗 诪讬谉 讘砖讗讬谞讜 诪讬谞讜 讘讟注诪讗 诪讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 讘专讜讘讗

Rather, one must say that according to Reish Lakish, in a case of a type of food mixed with food not of its own type, such as wheat flour and rice flour, whose tastes are different, the status is determined by the flavor. Therefore, if the dough tastes like wheat, it has the halakha of a dough made from wheat. But if it is a type of food mixed with food of its own type, e.g., a mixture of piggul and notar meat, which is the case addressed by Reish Lakish, the status of the mixture is determined by the majority.

讜谞砖注专 诪讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 讻诪讬谉 讘砖讗讬谞讜 诪讬谞讜 讚转谞谉 谞转注专讘 讘讬讬谉 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讜讗 诪讬诐 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇讬讬谉 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讜讗 诪讬诐

The Gemara suggests: But let us estimate in a case of a type of food mixed with food of its own type as though it were a mixture of a type of food mixed with food not of its own type, and if so, the minority is not nullified if it is substantial enough to impart flavor to the majority. As we learned in the mishna: If the blood of an offering was mixed with wine, one considers it as though it is water. Although blood and wine certainly have different flavors, in the case of the mishna the determinative factor is not the taste of the mixture, but the appearance. Since they share the same appearance, they are considered a case of a substance in contact with the same type of substance. What, is it not correct to explain the mishna as stating that one views the wine as though it is water, i.e., a substance of a different type, and if the mixture would have the appearance of blood if the wine were water it is fit for presentation, despite the fact that the blood is not the majority?

诇讗 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇讚诐 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讜讗 诪讬诐 讗讬 讛讻讬 讘讟诇 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara answers: No, this is not the explanation of the mishna. Rather, it means that one views the blood as though it is water, i.e., it is unfit for presentation, since it is as though one presented water on the altar. The Gemara questions this explanation: If so, the tanna of the mishna should have said: The blood is nullified.

讜注讜讚 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讜讗 讬讬谉 讗讚讜诐 讗诐 讚讬讛讛 诪专讗讛讜 讻砖专

And furthermore, it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Mikvaot 7:4): With regard to a ritually impure bucket containing a certain amount of white wine or milk that one immersed in a ritual bath, Rabbi Yehuda says: Although the appearance of the white wine or milk is not discernible in the water of the ritual bath that enters the bucket, one views the white wine or milk as though it is red wine, and makes the following determination: If its conjectured red appearance would pale due to the water that enters the bucket, the wine or milk is nullified by the water. Therefore, the act of purification is fit, and the bucket is ritually pure.

讜讗诐 诇讗讜 驻住讜诇

Rabbi Yehuda continues: But if its conjectured red appearance would not pale, the act of purification is unfit, and the bucket remains ritually impure. This is a case in which a substance was mixed with another substance of similar appearance, as white wine and milk have a similar appearance to the water, and yet it is treated as a mixture of a substance with a different type of substance, and it is not nullified in a majority.

转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讚诇讬 砖讬砖 讘讜 讬讬谉 诇讘谉 讗讜 讞诇讘 讜讛讟讘讬诇讜 讛讜诇讻讬谉 讗讞专 讛专讜讘 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讜讗 讬讬谉 讗讚讜诐 讗诐 讚讬讛讛 诪专讗讛讜 讻砖专 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 驻住讜诇

The Gemara explains: One cannot cite a proof from the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as this is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, and the ruling follows the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. As it is taught in that baraita: With regard to a ritually impure bucket in which there is white wine or milk, and one immersed it in a ritual bath, one follows the majority, i.e., if the majority of the contents of the bucket is now water from the ritual bath, it is pure. Rabbi Yehuda says: One views the white wine or milk as though it is red wine and makes the following determination: If its conjectured red appearance would pale due to the water that enters the bucket, the act of purification is fit, and the bucket is ritually pure. But if its conjectured red appearance would not pale, the act of purification is unfit, and the bucket remains ritually impure.

讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讚诇讬 砖讛讜讗 诪诇讗 专讜拽讬谉 讜讛讟讘讬诇讜 讻讗讬诇讜 诇讗 讟讘诇

And the Gemara raises a contradiction to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda from a mishna (see Mikvaot 10:6): If one had an impure bucket that is filled with spittle and one immersed it in a ritual bath, the spittle is considered an interposition between the water of the ritual bath and that of the bucket, and therefore it is as though he did not immerse it.

诪讬 专讙诇讬诐 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 讻讗讬诇讜 讛谉 诪讬诐

If the impure bucket was full of urine and he immersed it, although urine is slightly different in appearance than water, one views the urine as though it is water, and therefore once the urine is in contact with the ritual bath it is considered connected to the water, and it is not an interposition preventing the bucket from becoming ritually pure.

诪诇讗 诪讬 讞讟讗转 注讚 砖讬专讘讜 讛诪讬诐 注诇 诪讬 讞讟讗转

The mishna continues: If the impure bucket was filled with water of purification, the bucket is not purified until the water of the ritual bath that enters the bucket becomes greater in quantity than the water of purification it contains, thereby nullifying it in a majority.

诪讗谉 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 专讜讗讬谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜拽转谞讬 讚住讙讬 诇讬讛 讘专讜讘讗

The Gemara explains the contradiction: Whom have you heard who accepts this reasoning of: One views, which appears in this mishna with regard to urine? It is Rabbi Yehuda, as stated in the baraita cited above. And yet the mishna teaches that a majority suffices to nullify the water of purification that became mixed with water, and it is not considered as though it is red wine. This conflicts with the ruling of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to white wine and milk.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗

Abaye says: This is not difficult;

Scroll To Top