זבחים 78 — parallel

78:1

R. JUDAH SAID: BLOOD CANNOT NULLIFY BLOOD. IF IT WAS MIXED WITH THE BLOOD OF UNFIT [ANIMALS], IT MUST BE POURED OUT INTO THE DUCT. [IF IT WAS MIXED] WITH THE DRAINING BLOOD, IT MUST BE POURED OUT INTO THE DUCT; R. ELIEZER DECLARED IT FIT. IF HE [THE PRIEST] DID NOT ASK BUT SPRINKLED IT, IT IS VALID. GEMARA. R. Hiyya b. Abba said in R. Johanan's name: We learnt this only if the water fell into the blood; but if the blood fell into the water, each drop is nullified as it falls. R. Papa observed: [But] it is not so in respect to covering, because there is no rejection in precepts. Resh Lakish said: If piggul, nothar and unclean [flesh] were mixed up together, and one ate them, he is not culpable, [for] it is impossible that one kind should not exceed the other and nullify it. You may infer three things from this. You may infer [i]: Interdicts nullify each other. And you may infer [ii]: [The interdict of] taste in a greater quantity is not Scriptural. And you may infer [iii]: A doubtful warning is not called a warning. Raba raised an objection: If one made a dough of wheat and rice, if it tastes of corn, it is subject to hallah. Now that is so even if the greater part is rice? — [That is] by Rabbinical law [only]. If so, consider the sequel: A man can fulfil his duty thereby on Passover? 13

—

78:2

— Rather, [when] one kind [is mixed] with a different kind, [its status is determined] by taste; [when] one kind [is mixed] with the same kind, [its status is determined] by the greater part. Yet, [where] one kind [is mixed] with its own kind, let us determine [its status] as though it were one kind with a different kind. For we learnt: IF IT WAS MIXED WITH WINE, WE REGARD IT AS THOUGH IT WERE WATER. Does that not mean [that] we regard the wine as though it were water? — No: [it means that] we regard the blood as though it were water. If so, he should state, [The blood] is nullified? Moreover, it was taught, R. Judah said: We regard it as though it were red wine if its appearance goes faint, it is valid; if not, it is invalid! — It is a controversy of Tannaim. For it was taught: If one immerses a pail containing white wine or milk, we decide by the excess. R. Judah said: We regard it as though it were red wine: if its appearance goes faint, it is valid; if not, it is invalid. But the following contradicts this: If one immersed a pail full of saliva, it is as though he had not immersed it. [If it was full of] urine, we regard it as though it were water. If it was filled with water of lustration, the water [of the mikweh] must exceed the water of lustration. Now, whom do you know to hold [that] we regard’? R. Judah; yet he teaches that an excess is sufficient? — Said Abaye: There is no difficulty:

—