זבחים עט

זבחים עט

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.