Zevachim — Daf 78b

אלא מין בשאינו מינו בטעמא מין במינו ברובא

ונשער מין במינו כמין בשאינו מינו דתנן נתערב ביין רואין אותו כאילו הוא מים מאי לאו רואין אותו ליין כאילו הוא מים

לא רואין אותו לדם כאילו הוא מים אי הכי בטל מיבעי ליה

ועוד תניא ר' יהודה אומר רואין אותו כאילו הוא יין אדום אם דיהה מראהו כשר

ואם לאו פסול

תנאי היא דתניא דלי שיש בו יין לבן או חלב והטבילו הולכין אחר הרוב ר' יהודה אומר רואין אותו כאילו הוא יין אדום אם דיהה מראהו כשר ואם לאו פסול

ורמינהי דלי שהוא מלא רוקין והטבילו כאילו לא טבל

מי רגלים רואין אותו כאילו הן מים

מלא מי חטאת עד שירבו המים על מי חטאת

מאן שמעת ליה דאית ליה רואין רבי יהודה וקתני דסגי ליה ברובא

אמר אביי לא קשיא

— 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.1 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.2 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?3 — No: [it means that] we regard the blood as though it were water.4 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!5 — It is a controversy of Tannaim.6 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.7 But the following contradicts this: If one immersed a pail full of saliva, it is as though he had not immersed it.8 [If it was full of]9 urine, we regard it as though it were water.10 If it was filled with water of lustration,11 the water [of the mikweh] must exceed the water of lustration.12 Now, whom do you know to hold [that] we regard’? R. Judah;13 yet he teaches that an excess is sufficient?14 — Said Abaye: There is no difficulty: let us rule likewise even where its taste is not distinguishable because it is of the same kind. of the same kind: this shews that the lesser is not nullified by the greater, but we regard the mixture as of two different kinds, of the mikweh naturally filled it, The Sages maintain that if this exceeded the wine or milk (which is not readily distinguishable from the water), the latter is nullified, the whole is regarded as water, and the pail becomes clean. This is similar to the ruling of Resh Lakish. But R. Judah maintains that we regard it as though it were red wine: if there is so little of it that the water of the mikweh would make it go faint and lose the appearance of wine, the immersion is valid, and the pail becomes clean; otherwise it is invalid, and the pail remains unclean, there must not be any interposition. the mikweh itself. For that reason it is not necessary for the water of the mikweh to exceed it. unclean person upon whom it was sprinkled, it defiled a clean person with its touch. the latter exceeds what is left of the former. For although the latter too is water, owing to its sanctity and to its high degree of uncleanness it does not simply become part of the mikweh, but must be nullified by an excess. though it were wine, as above.