Masechet Zevachim
Masechet Zevachim is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross on his third yahrzeit. “He exemplified a path of holiness and purity, living with kedushah in his everyday life.”
This week’s learning is sponsored by Seme Dewees-Cooper. “Although I started learning at the beginning of this Daf Yomi Cycle, I found Hadran just 4 years ago. Thank you Rabbanit Michelle for making the Daf easier to understand, even when we are in a Masechet that may not feel as relevant to our daily lives. I am so grateful for the last 4 years of learning with Hadran.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
A contradiction between the Mishna in Mikvaot 10:6, which seems to be Rabbi Yehuda’s position anrules according to majority, and Rabbi Yehuda in the braita, who follows appearance, is resolved in two ways. Abaye suggests that in the braita, where the position is stricter, Rabbi Yehuda is quoting Rabban Gamliel, who was known for his stringency in cases of nullification, as he did not allow nullification at all in mixtures of the same type (min b’mino). Rava, however, explains that the more lenient opinion in Mikvaot refers to a case where only the outside of the cup was impure. By Torah law, the mikveh waters need only pass over the rim, not fill the cup. Since the requirement to fill the cup is rabbinic, there is room for leniency.
Rabbi Elazar disagrees with Reish Lakish regarding pigul and notar that became mixed together. He holds that just as mitzvot do not nullify one another, prohibitions likewise do not nullify each other. This principle is based on Hillel, who would eat matza and maror together on Pesach to fulfill the commandment that they be eaten simultaneously. If mitzvot could nullify one another, the strong taste of the maror would cancel the taste of the matza, preventing fulfillment of the mitzva of eating matza in that manner.
Regarding min b’mino, a mixture of the same type, there is a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis as to whether it can be nullified. A similar debate appears in the Tosefta Taharot 5:3 between Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov and the rabbis in a case of a shard that absorbed urine: can it be purified by soaking or rinsing in urine?
In the Mishna, there is also a debate between Rabbi Eliezer and the rabbis concerning blood mixed with problematic blood. The question arises: does Rabbi Eliezer disagree in both cases – disqualified blood and dam hatamtzit (the blood that flows from inside the animal) – or only in the latter case? The Mishna explores various scenarios of blood mixtures and clarifies where Rabbi Eliezer and the rabbis differ.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Masechet Zevachim
Masechet Zevachim is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross on his third yahrzeit. “He exemplified a path of holiness and purity, living with kedushah in his everyday life.”
This week’s learning is sponsored by Seme Dewees-Cooper. “Although I started learning at the beginning of this Daf Yomi Cycle, I found Hadran just 4 years ago. Thank you Rabbanit Michelle for making the Daf easier to understand, even when we are in a Masechet that may not feel as relevant to our daily lives. I am so grateful for the last 4 years of learning with Hadran.”
Today’s daf is sponsored by David and Mitzi Geffen in loving memory of Mitzi’s father, Jack Lock, on his fifth yahrzeit. “He was so proud that all four of his children made aliya to Israel and that his ‘tribe’ grew during his lifetime to nearly 100 family members, spanning three generations (now four!) all in Israel. He was a generous and loving husband, father, grandfather, great-grandfather, uncle, and brother who is sorely missed.”
Today’s daf is sponsored by Sigal Spitzer Flamholz in loving memory of Grandma Rhoda or “GG’s” on her 2nd yahrzeit. “We miss you and think about you I know you would be so proud of my ongoing torah learning.”
Zevachim 79
הָא דִּידֵיהּ הָא דְּרַבֵּיהּ. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: אֵין דָּם מְבַטֵּל דָּם, אֵין רוֹק מְבַטֵּל רוֹק, וְאֵין מֵי רַגְלַיִם מְבַטְּלִין מֵי רַגְלַיִם.
this statement, that the water of purification is nullified in a majority of water, is his, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda’s, own opinion, whereas that statement, in the baraita, that white wine is not nullified in a majority of water, is his teacher’s ruling, i.e., that of Rabban Gamliel, who is stringent with regard to a mixture of a substance in contact with the same type of substance. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabban Gamliel: Blood does not nullify blood, spittle does not nullify spittle, and urine does not nullify urine.
רָבָא אָמַר: בִּדְלִי שֶׁתּוֹכוֹ טָהוֹר וְגַבּוֹ טָמֵא עָסְקִינַן; דְּמִדִּינָא – סַגִּי לְהוּ בְּכֹל דְּהוּ,
Rava says there is a different resolution of the apparent contradiction between the mishna that states that water of purification is nullified in a majority of water of a ritual bath and Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion in the baraita with regard to white wine mixed with water: In the mishna, we are dealing with a bucket whose internal surface is ritually pure, and only its external surface is impure. The significance of this is that by Torah law it suffices for the water of the ritual bath to enter the bucket in any amount to purify its external surface, and therefore the water of purification in the bucket does not prevent the purification of the bucket at all.
וְרַבָּנַן הוּא דִּגְזַרוּ בְּהוּ דִּילְמָא חָיֵיס עֲלַיְיהוּ וְלָא מְבַטֵּיל לֵיהּ; וְכֵיוָן דְּאִיכָּא רִיבּוּיָא – לָא צְרִיךְ.
Rava continues: And it is the Sages who decreed with regard to this case that the internal surface must be purified as well, lest the owner wish to spare the water of purification and not to nullify it from its sanctity. In that case he would wish to avoid allowing water from the ritual bath to enter the vessel, and might immerse it in a manner which would not allow even the full external surface to come in contact with the water. Therefore, the Sages required that one immerse the entire vessel. But once there is a majority of water in the bucket from the ritual bath, he does not need to enable any more water to enter the vessel, as by Torah law it is already pure.
אָמַר רָבָא: אֲמוּר רַבָּנַן בְּטַעְמָא, וַאֲמוּר רַבָּנַן בְּרוּבָּא, וַאֲמוּר רַבָּנַן בַּחֲזוּתָא. מִין בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ – בְּטַעְמָא, מִין בְּמִינוֹ – בְּרוּבָּא, הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא חֲזוּתָא – בְּמַרְאֶה.
§ Rava says, in summary of these halakhot: The Sages said that the status of an item in a mixture is determined by the taste, i.e., if the taste of one substance is noticeable in a mixture with another substance it is not nullified, and the Sages said that a prohibited item is nullified by the majority, and the Sages also said that the status of an item in a mixture is determined by the appearance, i.e., if the appearance of a substance is recognizable in a mixture it is not nullified. Rava elaborates: With regard to a type of food mixed with food not of its own type, the nullification is determined by the taste. In the case of a type of food mixed with food of its own type, the nullification is determined by the majority. In a case where there is a possibility to determine the status of an item based on appearance, the nullification is by appearance.
וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֵין מִצְוֹת מְבַטְּלוֹת זוֹ אֶת זוֹ, כָּךְ אֵין אִיסּוּרִין מְבַטְּלִין זֶה אֶת זֶה.
§ The Gemara returns to its discussion of the opinion of Reish Lakish that prohibited items, such as piggul, notar, and ritually impure meat, nullify one another. The Gemara notes: And Reish Lakish disagrees with the statement of Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar says: Just as items used in the performance of mitzvot do not nullify one another, despite the fact that one is of greater volume than the other or imparts flavor to it, so too, items to which prohibitions apply do not nullify one another.
מַאן שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ דְּאָמַר: אֵין מִצְוֹת מְבַטְּלוֹת זוֹ אֶת זוֹ? הִלֵּל הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: אָמְרוּ עָלָיו עַל הִלֵּל הַזָּקֵן שֶׁהָיָה כּוֹרְכָן בְּבַת אַחַת וְאוֹכְלָן, מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״עַל מַצּוֹת וּמְרוֹרִים יֹאכְלוּהוּ״.
The Gemara adds: Whom did you hear who says that items used in the performance of mitzvot do not nullify one another? It is Hillel, as it is taught in a baraita: They said about Hillel the Elder that when eating the Paschal offering, matza, and bitter herbs on the first night of Passover, he would wrap them all at once and eat them together, because it is stated with regard to the Paschal offering: “They shall eat it with matzot and bitter herbs” (Numbers 9:11), which indicates that these three foods should be eaten together. Hillel was not concerned that the taste of the bitter herbs would nullify the taste of the matza.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: חַרְסָן שֶׁל זָב וְזָבָה – פַּעַם רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי טָמֵא, שְׁלִישִׁי טָהוֹר.
§ The Gemara continues its discussion of cases involving a mixture of one substance in contact with the same type of substance, in which according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda in the mishna the prohibited substance is not nullified. The Sages taught a baraita (Tosefta, Teharot 5:3): In a case where a broken earthenware flask had absorbed the urine of a zav or a zava, whose urine is a primary source of ritual impurity, which imparts impurity to one who carries it, in such a case, if one poured water into this flask to clean it, after the first time and the second time one washed it, it remains ritually impure, but after the third time it is ritually pure, as the impure urine has been expelled from the flask.
בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – שֶׁנָּתַן לְתוֹכוֹ מַיִם; אֲבָל לֹא נָתַן לְתוֹכוֹ מַיִם – אֲפִילּוּ עֲשִׂירִי טָמֵא. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: שְׁלִישִׁי, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן לְתוֹכוֹ מַיִם – טָהוֹר. מַאן דְּשָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ דְּאָמַר: מִין בְּמִינוֹ לֹא בָּטֵיל? רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
The baraita continues: In what case is this statement said? It is said when one placed water into the flask. But if he did not place water into it, but instead placed the urine of a ritually pure person into it, even after the tenth time he places this urine into the flask it remains ritually impure, as one substance in contact with the same type of substance is not nullified. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: After the third time, even though he did not place water into it, but rather urine, it is ritually pure. The Gemara comments: Whom did you hear who says that a substance in contact with the same type of substance is not nullified? Rabbi Yehuda, and therefore he is the first tanna of this baraita.
וּרְמִינְהוּ: פִּשְׁתָּן שֶׁטְּוָואָתוֹ נִדָּה – מְסִיטוֹ טָהוֹר. וְאִם הָיָה לַח – מְסִיטוֹ טָמֵא מִשּׁוּם מַשְׁקֵה פִּיהָ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַף הָרוֹטְבוֹ בְּמַיִם – טָמֵא מִשּׁוּם מַשְׁקֶה פִּיהָ, וַאֲפִילּוּ טוּבָא!
And the Gemara raises a contradiction from another baraita (Tosefta, Teharot 4:11): With regard to flax that was woven by a menstruating woman, although it has absorbed the spittle of a menstruating woman, which imparts impurity by being carried, one who moves it remains ritually pure, as the spittle has dried. But if the flax was still moist, one who moves it is rendered impure due to the liquid of her mouth, i.e., the spittle of the menstruating woman. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even one who wets the flax with water is rendered impure due to the liquid of her mouth, and this halakha applies even if he wet the flax a great deal, several times, as the water does not nullify and expel the spittle. This apparently contradicts Rabbi Yehuda’s claim with regard to the broken flask that was washed with water three times.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: שָׁאנֵי רוֹק, דְּקָרִיר.
Rav Pappa says: Spittle is different, as it is thoroughly absorbed and adheres to the flax, and therefore washing the flax with water does not nullify the spittle.
נִתְעָרֵב בְּדַם הַפְּסוּלִין, יִשָּׁפֵךְ לָאַמָּה. בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי?
§ The mishna teaches: If blood fit for presentation was mixed with the blood of unfit offerings, the entire mixture shall be poured into the Temple courtyard drain, and similarly, if blood fit for presentation became mixed with blood of exudate, it shall be poured into the drain, whereas Rabbi Eliezer deems the mixture fit for presentation. The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do the first tanna and Rabbi Eliezer disagree?
אָמַר רַב זְבִיד: בְּגוֹזְרִין גְּזֵירָה בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ קָא מִיפַּלְגִי – דְּמָר סָבַר: גּוֹזְרִין, וּמָר סָבַר: (לָא) [אֵין] גּוֹזְרִין.
Rav Zevid says: They disagree with regard to the question of whether the Sages issue a rabbinic decree of this kind with regard to the Temple. As one Sage, the first tanna, holds that the Sages issue a rabbinic decree with regard to the Temple, and therefore one may not present this mixture of blood, lest one present a mixture that contains a majority of blood of unfit offerings or blood of exudate. And one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds that the Sages do not issue a rabbinic decree with regard to the Temple, and consequently this mixture of blood is fit for presentation.
רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא גּוֹזְרִין;
Rav Pappa says that there is a different explanation of the dispute: Everyone agrees that the Sages issue a rabbinic decree with regard to the Temple, and therefore in a case where blood fit for presentation was mixed with the blood of unfit offerings Rabbi Eliezer agrees that it should be poured into the Temple courtyard drain, and he deems the blood permitted only if it was mixed with blood of exudate.
וְהָכָא, בְּדַם הַתַּמְצִית מָצוּי לִרְבּוֹת עַל דַּם הַנֶּפֶשׁ קָא מִיפַּלְגִי – מָר סָבַר: שְׁכִיחַ, וּמָר סָבַר: לָא שְׁכִיחַ.
Rav Pappa continues: And here they disagree with regard to the question of whether it is common for blood of exudate to be greater in quantity than blood of the soul, i.e., the blood that emerges immediately following the slaughter of the animal. One Sage, the first tanna, holds that this is a common occurrence, and therefore the Sages issued a decree concerning all mixtures of blood of exudate and blood of the soul. And one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds that this is not a common occurrence, and therefore the Sages did not issue a decree concerning a mixture of this kind.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַב פָּפָּא, הַיְינוּ דְּקָתָנֵי: נִתְעָרֵב בְּדַם הַפְּסוּלִין – יִשָּׁפֵךְ לָאַמָּה, (אוֹ) בְּדַם הַתַּמְצִית – יִשָּׁפֵךְ לָאַמָּה.
The Gemara comments: Granted, according to the opinion of Rav Pappa that Rabbi Eliezer’s lenient ruling applies only to a mixture with blood of exudate, but that he concedes to the first tanna that if blood fit for presentation was mixed with the blood of unfit offerings it is poured down the Temple courtyard drain, this explanation is consistent with that which the mishna teaches: If blood fit for presentation was mixed with the blood of unfit offerings, it shall be poured into the Temple courtyard drain; if blood fit for presentation was mixed with blood of exudate, it shall be poured into the drain. In other words, the fact that the mishna separates these two cases into different clauses makes sense, as Rabbi Eliezer’s ruling applies only to one case.
אֶלָּא לְרַב זְבִיד, לִיעָרְבִינְהוּ וְלִיתְנִינְהוּ! קַשְׁיָא.
But according to the interpretation of Rav Zevid that Rabbi Eliezer disagrees with regard to both cases, let the mishna combine them and teach them together, as follows: If blood fit for presentation was mixed with the blood of unfit offerings or with blood of exudate, the entire mixture shall be poured into the drain running through the Temple courtyard, and Rabbi Eliezer deems the mixtures fit for presentation. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, the wording of the mishna poses a difficulty to the explanation of Rav Zevid.
מַתְנִי׳ דַּם תְּמִימִים בְּדַם בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין – יִשָּׁפֵךְ לָאַמָּה. כּוֹס בְּכוֹסוֹת – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אִם קָרַב כּוֹס אֶחָד, יִקְרְבוּ כָּל הַכּוֹסוֹת. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֲפִילּוּ קָרְבוּ כּוּלָּן חוּץ מֵאֶחָד מֵהֶן, יִשָּׁפֵךְ לָאַמָּה.
MISHNA: If the blood of unblemished offerings was mixed with the blood of blemished animals unfit for sacrifice, the entire mixture shall be poured into the Temple courtyard drain. This is the halakha when the fit and unfit blood were mixed in one vessel. By contrast, if a cup of the blood of a blemished offering was intermingled with cups of blood fit for offering and it is unclear which blood is in the cup, Rabbi Eliezer says: Although it is prohibited to present all the blood due to the uncertainty, if it happened that a priest already sacrificed, i.e., presented, one cup, the blood in all the other cups shall be sacrificed, as the blood that was presented is assumed to have come from the unfit cup in the mixture. And the Rabbis say: Even if the blood in all the cups was sacrificed except for one of them, the remaining blood shall be poured into the Temple courtyard drain.
הַנִּיתָּנִין לְמַטָּה שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ בַּנִּיתָּנִין לְמַעְלָה – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: יִתֵּן לְמַעְלָה, וְרוֹאֶה אֲנִי אֶת הַתַּחְתּוֹנִים מִלְּמַעְלָן כְּאִילּוּ הֵם מַיִם, וְיַחֲזוֹר וְיִתֵּן לְמַטָּה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: יִשָּׁפֵךְ לָאַמָּה. וְאִם לֹא נִמְלַךְ וְנָתַן – כָּשֵׁר.
With regard to blood that is to be placed below the red line circumscribing the altar, e.g., blood of a burnt offering, a guilt offering, or a peace offering, that was mixed with blood that is to be placed above the red line, e.g., blood of a sin offering, Rabbi Eliezer says: The priest shall initially place the blood of the mixture above the red line for the sake of the sin offering, and I view the blood that was to be placed below that was in fact placed above as though it is water, and the priest shall again place blood from the mixture below. And the Rabbis say: It shall all be poured into the Temple courtyard drain. Even according to the Rabbis, if the priest did not consult the authorities and placed the blood above the red line, the offering is fit, and he should then place the remaining blood below the red line.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I started my Daf Yomi journey at the beginning of the COVID19 pandemic.
Los Angeles, United States
When I was working and taking care of my children, learning was never on the list. Now that I have more time I have two different Gemora classes and the nach yomi as well as the mishna yomi daily.
Jerusalem, Israel
Richmond, CA, United States
I started learning at the beginning of the cycle after a friend persuaded me that it would be right up my alley. I was lucky enough to learn at Rabbanit Michelle’s house before it started on zoom and it was quickly part of my daily routine. I find it so important to see for myself where halachot were derived, where stories were told and to get more insight into how the Rabbis interacted.
Ra’anana, Israel
I started to listen to Michelle’s podcasts four years ago. The minute I started I was hooked. I’m so excited to learn the entire Talmud, and think I will continue always. I chose the quote “while a woman is engaged in conversation she also holds the spindle”. (Megillah 14b). It reminds me of all of the amazing women I learn with every day who multi-task, think ahead and accomplish so much.
Zichron Yakov, Israel
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
I am grateful for the structure of the Daf Yomi. When I am freer to learn to my heart’s content, I learn other passages in addition. But even in times of difficulty, I always know that I can rely on the structure and social support of Daf Yomi learners all over the world.
I am also grateful for this forum. It is very helpful to learn with a group of enthusiastic and committed women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
When I began the previous cycle, I promised myself that if I stuck with it, I would reward myself with a trip to Israel. Little did I know that the trip would involve attending the first ever women’s siyum and being inspired by so many learners. I am now over 2 years into my second cycle and being part of this large, diverse, fascinating learning family has enhanced my learning exponentially.
Minnesota, United States
Minnesota, United States
I started learning on January 5, 2020. When I complete the 7+ year cycle I will be 70 years old. I had been intimidated by those who said that I needed to study Talmud in a traditional way with a chevruta, but I decided the learning was more important to me than the method. Thankful for Daf Yomi for Women helping me catch up when I fall behind, and also being able to celebrate with each Siyum!
Bakersfield, United States
Los Angeles, United States
Having never learned Talmud before, I started Daf Yomi in hopes of connecting to the Rabbinic tradition, sharing a daily idea on Instagram (@dafyomiadventures). With Hadran and Sefaria, I slowly gained confidence in my skills and understanding. Now, part of the Pardes Jewish Educators Program, I can’t wait to bring this love of learning with me as I continue to pass it on to my future students.
Pennsylvania, United States
My curiosity was peaked after seeing posts about the end of the last cycle. I am always looking for opportunities to increase my Jewish literacy & I am someone that is drawn to habit and consistency. Dinnertime includes a “Guess what I learned on the daf” segment for my husband and 18 year old twins. I also love the feelings of connection with my colleagues who are also learning.
Tampa, United States
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
Berlin, Germany
I had tried to start after being inspired by the hadran siyum, but did not manage to stick to it. However, just before masechet taanit, our rav wrote a message to the shul WhatsApp encouraging people to start with masechet taanit, so I did! And this time, I’m hooked! I listen to the shiur every day , and am also trying to improve my skills.
Yad Binyamin, Israel
Raanana, Israel
When we heard that R. Michelle was starting daf yomi, my 11-year-old suggested that I go. Little did she know that she would lose me every morning from then on. I remember standing at the Farbers’ door, almost too shy to enter. After that first class, I said that I would come the next day but couldn’t commit to more. A decade later, I still look forward to learning from R. Michelle every morning.
Ra’anana, Israel
I went to day school in Toronto but really began to learn when I attended Brovenders back in the early 1980’s. Last year after talking to my sister who was learning Daf Yomi, inspired, I looked on the computer and the Hadran site came up. I have been listening to each days shiur in the morning as I work. I emphasis listening since I am not sitting with a Gamara. I listen while I work in my studio.
Tekoa, Israel
I heard about the syium in January 2020 & I was excited to start learning then the pandemic started. Learning Daf became something to focus on but also something stressful. As the world changed around me & my family I had to adjust my expectations for myself & the world. Daf Yomi & the Hadran podcast has been something I look forward to every day. It gives me a moment of centering & Judaism daily.
Denver, United States
Zevachim 79
הָא דִּידֵיהּ הָא דְּרַבֵּיהּ. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: אֵין דָּם מְבַטֵּל דָּם, אֵין רוֹק מְבַטֵּל רוֹק, וְאֵין מֵי רַגְלַיִם מְבַטְּלִין מֵי רַגְלַיִם.
this statement, that the water of purification is nullified in a majority of water, is his, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda’s, own opinion, whereas that statement, in the baraita, that white wine is not nullified in a majority of water, is his teacher’s ruling, i.e., that of Rabban Gamliel, who is stringent with regard to a mixture of a substance in contact with the same type of substance. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabban Gamliel: Blood does not nullify blood, spittle does not nullify spittle, and urine does not nullify urine.
רָבָא אָמַר: בִּדְלִי שֶׁתּוֹכוֹ טָהוֹר וְגַבּוֹ טָמֵא עָסְקִינַן; דְּמִדִּינָא – סַגִּי לְהוּ בְּכֹל דְּהוּ,
Rava says there is a different resolution of the apparent contradiction between the mishna that states that water of purification is nullified in a majority of water of a ritual bath and Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion in the baraita with regard to white wine mixed with water: In the mishna, we are dealing with a bucket whose internal surface is ritually pure, and only its external surface is impure. The significance of this is that by Torah law it suffices for the water of the ritual bath to enter the bucket in any amount to purify its external surface, and therefore the water of purification in the bucket does not prevent the purification of the bucket at all.
וְרַבָּנַן הוּא דִּגְזַרוּ בְּהוּ דִּילְמָא חָיֵיס עֲלַיְיהוּ וְלָא מְבַטֵּיל לֵיהּ; וְכֵיוָן דְּאִיכָּא רִיבּוּיָא – לָא צְרִיךְ.
Rava continues: And it is the Sages who decreed with regard to this case that the internal surface must be purified as well, lest the owner wish to spare the water of purification and not to nullify it from its sanctity. In that case he would wish to avoid allowing water from the ritual bath to enter the vessel, and might immerse it in a manner which would not allow even the full external surface to come in contact with the water. Therefore, the Sages required that one immerse the entire vessel. But once there is a majority of water in the bucket from the ritual bath, he does not need to enable any more water to enter the vessel, as by Torah law it is already pure.
אָמַר רָבָא: אֲמוּר רַבָּנַן בְּטַעְמָא, וַאֲמוּר רַבָּנַן בְּרוּבָּא, וַאֲמוּר רַבָּנַן בַּחֲזוּתָא. מִין בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ – בְּטַעְמָא, מִין בְּמִינוֹ – בְּרוּבָּא, הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא חֲזוּתָא – בְּמַרְאֶה.
§ Rava says, in summary of these halakhot: The Sages said that the status of an item in a mixture is determined by the taste, i.e., if the taste of one substance is noticeable in a mixture with another substance it is not nullified, and the Sages said that a prohibited item is nullified by the majority, and the Sages also said that the status of an item in a mixture is determined by the appearance, i.e., if the appearance of a substance is recognizable in a mixture it is not nullified. Rava elaborates: With regard to a type of food mixed with food not of its own type, the nullification is determined by the taste. In the case of a type of food mixed with food of its own type, the nullification is determined by the majority. In a case where there is a possibility to determine the status of an item based on appearance, the nullification is by appearance.
וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֵין מִצְוֹת מְבַטְּלוֹת זוֹ אֶת זוֹ, כָּךְ אֵין אִיסּוּרִין מְבַטְּלִין זֶה אֶת זֶה.
§ The Gemara returns to its discussion of the opinion of Reish Lakish that prohibited items, such as piggul, notar, and ritually impure meat, nullify one another. The Gemara notes: And Reish Lakish disagrees with the statement of Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar says: Just as items used in the performance of mitzvot do not nullify one another, despite the fact that one is of greater volume than the other or imparts flavor to it, so too, items to which prohibitions apply do not nullify one another.
מַאן שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ דְּאָמַר: אֵין מִצְוֹת מְבַטְּלוֹת זוֹ אֶת זוֹ? הִלֵּל הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: אָמְרוּ עָלָיו עַל הִלֵּל הַזָּקֵן שֶׁהָיָה כּוֹרְכָן בְּבַת אַחַת וְאוֹכְלָן, מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״עַל מַצּוֹת וּמְרוֹרִים יֹאכְלוּהוּ״.
The Gemara adds: Whom did you hear who says that items used in the performance of mitzvot do not nullify one another? It is Hillel, as it is taught in a baraita: They said about Hillel the Elder that when eating the Paschal offering, matza, and bitter herbs on the first night of Passover, he would wrap them all at once and eat them together, because it is stated with regard to the Paschal offering: “They shall eat it with matzot and bitter herbs” (Numbers 9:11), which indicates that these three foods should be eaten together. Hillel was not concerned that the taste of the bitter herbs would nullify the taste of the matza.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: חַרְסָן שֶׁל זָב וְזָבָה – פַּעַם רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי טָמֵא, שְׁלִישִׁי טָהוֹר.
§ The Gemara continues its discussion of cases involving a mixture of one substance in contact with the same type of substance, in which according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda in the mishna the prohibited substance is not nullified. The Sages taught a baraita (Tosefta, Teharot 5:3): In a case where a broken earthenware flask had absorbed the urine of a zav or a zava, whose urine is a primary source of ritual impurity, which imparts impurity to one who carries it, in such a case, if one poured water into this flask to clean it, after the first time and the second time one washed it, it remains ritually impure, but after the third time it is ritually pure, as the impure urine has been expelled from the flask.
בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – שֶׁנָּתַן לְתוֹכוֹ מַיִם; אֲבָל לֹא נָתַן לְתוֹכוֹ מַיִם – אֲפִילּוּ עֲשִׂירִי טָמֵא. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: שְׁלִישִׁי, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן לְתוֹכוֹ מַיִם – טָהוֹר. מַאן דְּשָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ דְּאָמַר: מִין בְּמִינוֹ לֹא בָּטֵיל? רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
The baraita continues: In what case is this statement said? It is said when one placed water into the flask. But if he did not place water into it, but instead placed the urine of a ritually pure person into it, even after the tenth time he places this urine into the flask it remains ritually impure, as one substance in contact with the same type of substance is not nullified. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: After the third time, even though he did not place water into it, but rather urine, it is ritually pure. The Gemara comments: Whom did you hear who says that a substance in contact with the same type of substance is not nullified? Rabbi Yehuda, and therefore he is the first tanna of this baraita.
וּרְמִינְהוּ: פִּשְׁתָּן שֶׁטְּוָואָתוֹ נִדָּה – מְסִיטוֹ טָהוֹר. וְאִם הָיָה לַח – מְסִיטוֹ טָמֵא מִשּׁוּם מַשְׁקֵה פִּיהָ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַף הָרוֹטְבוֹ בְּמַיִם – טָמֵא מִשּׁוּם מַשְׁקֶה פִּיהָ, וַאֲפִילּוּ טוּבָא!
And the Gemara raises a contradiction from another baraita (Tosefta, Teharot 4:11): With regard to flax that was woven by a menstruating woman, although it has absorbed the spittle of a menstruating woman, which imparts impurity by being carried, one who moves it remains ritually pure, as the spittle has dried. But if the flax was still moist, one who moves it is rendered impure due to the liquid of her mouth, i.e., the spittle of the menstruating woman. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even one who wets the flax with water is rendered impure due to the liquid of her mouth, and this halakha applies even if he wet the flax a great deal, several times, as the water does not nullify and expel the spittle. This apparently contradicts Rabbi Yehuda’s claim with regard to the broken flask that was washed with water three times.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: שָׁאנֵי רוֹק, דְּקָרִיר.
Rav Pappa says: Spittle is different, as it is thoroughly absorbed and adheres to the flax, and therefore washing the flax with water does not nullify the spittle.
נִתְעָרֵב בְּדַם הַפְּסוּלִין, יִשָּׁפֵךְ לָאַמָּה. בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי?
§ The mishna teaches: If blood fit for presentation was mixed with the blood of unfit offerings, the entire mixture shall be poured into the Temple courtyard drain, and similarly, if blood fit for presentation became mixed with blood of exudate, it shall be poured into the drain, whereas Rabbi Eliezer deems the mixture fit for presentation. The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do the first tanna and Rabbi Eliezer disagree?
אָמַר רַב זְבִיד: בְּגוֹזְרִין גְּזֵירָה בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ קָא מִיפַּלְגִי – דְּמָר סָבַר: גּוֹזְרִין, וּמָר סָבַר: (לָא) [אֵין] גּוֹזְרִין.
Rav Zevid says: They disagree with regard to the question of whether the Sages issue a rabbinic decree of this kind with regard to the Temple. As one Sage, the first tanna, holds that the Sages issue a rabbinic decree with regard to the Temple, and therefore one may not present this mixture of blood, lest one present a mixture that contains a majority of blood of unfit offerings or blood of exudate. And one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds that the Sages do not issue a rabbinic decree with regard to the Temple, and consequently this mixture of blood is fit for presentation.
רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא גּוֹזְרִין;
Rav Pappa says that there is a different explanation of the dispute: Everyone agrees that the Sages issue a rabbinic decree with regard to the Temple, and therefore in a case where blood fit for presentation was mixed with the blood of unfit offerings Rabbi Eliezer agrees that it should be poured into the Temple courtyard drain, and he deems the blood permitted only if it was mixed with blood of exudate.
וְהָכָא, בְּדַם הַתַּמְצִית מָצוּי לִרְבּוֹת עַל דַּם הַנֶּפֶשׁ קָא מִיפַּלְגִי – מָר סָבַר: שְׁכִיחַ, וּמָר סָבַר: לָא שְׁכִיחַ.
Rav Pappa continues: And here they disagree with regard to the question of whether it is common for blood of exudate to be greater in quantity than blood of the soul, i.e., the blood that emerges immediately following the slaughter of the animal. One Sage, the first tanna, holds that this is a common occurrence, and therefore the Sages issued a decree concerning all mixtures of blood of exudate and blood of the soul. And one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds that this is not a common occurrence, and therefore the Sages did not issue a decree concerning a mixture of this kind.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַב פָּפָּא, הַיְינוּ דְּקָתָנֵי: נִתְעָרֵב בְּדַם הַפְּסוּלִין – יִשָּׁפֵךְ לָאַמָּה, (אוֹ) בְּדַם הַתַּמְצִית – יִשָּׁפֵךְ לָאַמָּה.
The Gemara comments: Granted, according to the opinion of Rav Pappa that Rabbi Eliezer’s lenient ruling applies only to a mixture with blood of exudate, but that he concedes to the first tanna that if blood fit for presentation was mixed with the blood of unfit offerings it is poured down the Temple courtyard drain, this explanation is consistent with that which the mishna teaches: If blood fit for presentation was mixed with the blood of unfit offerings, it shall be poured into the Temple courtyard drain; if blood fit for presentation was mixed with blood of exudate, it shall be poured into the drain. In other words, the fact that the mishna separates these two cases into different clauses makes sense, as Rabbi Eliezer’s ruling applies only to one case.
אֶלָּא לְרַב זְבִיד, לִיעָרְבִינְהוּ וְלִיתְנִינְהוּ! קַשְׁיָא.
But according to the interpretation of Rav Zevid that Rabbi Eliezer disagrees with regard to both cases, let the mishna combine them and teach them together, as follows: If blood fit for presentation was mixed with the blood of unfit offerings or with blood of exudate, the entire mixture shall be poured into the drain running through the Temple courtyard, and Rabbi Eliezer deems the mixtures fit for presentation. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, the wording of the mishna poses a difficulty to the explanation of Rav Zevid.
מַתְנִי׳ דַּם תְּמִימִים בְּדַם בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין – יִשָּׁפֵךְ לָאַמָּה. כּוֹס בְּכוֹסוֹת – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אִם קָרַב כּוֹס אֶחָד, יִקְרְבוּ כָּל הַכּוֹסוֹת. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֲפִילּוּ קָרְבוּ כּוּלָּן חוּץ מֵאֶחָד מֵהֶן, יִשָּׁפֵךְ לָאַמָּה.
MISHNA: If the blood of unblemished offerings was mixed with the blood of blemished animals unfit for sacrifice, the entire mixture shall be poured into the Temple courtyard drain. This is the halakha when the fit and unfit blood were mixed in one vessel. By contrast, if a cup of the blood of a blemished offering was intermingled with cups of blood fit for offering and it is unclear which blood is in the cup, Rabbi Eliezer says: Although it is prohibited to present all the blood due to the uncertainty, if it happened that a priest already sacrificed, i.e., presented, one cup, the blood in all the other cups shall be sacrificed, as the blood that was presented is assumed to have come from the unfit cup in the mixture. And the Rabbis say: Even if the blood in all the cups was sacrificed except for one of them, the remaining blood shall be poured into the Temple courtyard drain.
הַנִּיתָּנִין לְמַטָּה שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ בַּנִּיתָּנִין לְמַעְלָה – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: יִתֵּן לְמַעְלָה, וְרוֹאֶה אֲנִי אֶת הַתַּחְתּוֹנִים מִלְּמַעְלָן כְּאִילּוּ הֵם מַיִם, וְיַחֲזוֹר וְיִתֵּן לְמַטָּה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: יִשָּׁפֵךְ לָאַמָּה. וְאִם לֹא נִמְלַךְ וְנָתַן – כָּשֵׁר.
With regard to blood that is to be placed below the red line circumscribing the altar, e.g., blood of a burnt offering, a guilt offering, or a peace offering, that was mixed with blood that is to be placed above the red line, e.g., blood of a sin offering, Rabbi Eliezer says: The priest shall initially place the blood of the mixture above the red line for the sake of the sin offering, and I view the blood that was to be placed below that was in fact placed above as though it is water, and the priest shall again place blood from the mixture below. And the Rabbis say: It shall all be poured into the Temple courtyard drain. Even according to the Rabbis, if the priest did not consult the authorities and placed the blood above the red line, the offering is fit, and he should then place the remaining blood below the red line.
