Zevachim

R. JUDAH SAID: BLOOD CANNOT NULLIFY BLOOD.1 IF IT WAS MIXED WITH THE BLOOD OF UNFIT [ANIMALS],2 IT MUST BE POURED OUT INTO THE DUCT.3 [IF IT WAS MIXED] WITH THE DRAINING BLOOD,4 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.5 GEMARA. R. Hiyya b. Abba said in R. Johanan's name: We learnt this6 only if the water fell into the blood; but if the blood fell into the water, each drop is nullified as it falls.7 R. Papa observed: [But] it is not so in respect to covering, because there is no rejection in precepts. 8 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.9 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.10 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.11 Now that is so even if the greater part is rice?12 — [That is] by Rabbinical law [only]. If so, consider the sequel: A man can fulfil his duty thereby on Passover? 13 still fit for sprinkling. eating the flesh after time or out of bounds. eventually the mixture looks like blood, it is unfit for sprinkling. into water, if the whole looks like blood he must cover it, and we do not say that each consecutive drop was nullified. For though the first drop was indeed nullified, yet when so much has fallen in as to make the whole look like blood it regains its identity and combines with the rest, because where precepts are concerned a thing cannot be permanently rejected and made to lose its identity. flesh’ should be deleted), as one chews them together there must be in each piece that he chews rather more of the one kind and less of the other. This lesser part is nullified in the greater and is technically added thereto, whilst the kind which it is, is naturally diminished thereby. This will happen with each piece that he chews, and as it is impossible to equalise them, one of the kinds has less than the standard (as much as an olive is the minimum to involve liability). Now, liability in general is not incurred unless a formal warning, called hathra'ah, is first given to the offender; this warning must be couched in precise terms, e.g., ‘We warn you that for eating so-and-so you will incur such and such penalty.’ In this instance such a precise warning is impossible, for if it is given on account of piggul, perhaps liability may be incurred on account of nothar, piggul being short of the standard. Hence only a doubtful warning can be given, and such is not accounted a warning. Tosaf. explains differently. is forbidden, (even if the former is subsequently removed). From Resh Lakish we learn that this interdict is not Scriptural and therefore does not involve flagellation. For if it were Scriptural, then even when one kind exceeds the other, yet since each imparts its taste to the other, there is the forbidden taste in the full standard, and the offender would be culpable. of the five species of grain (wheat, barley, rye, oats and spelt), but not of rice, But if this dough counts as a wheat dough only by Rabbinical law, how can one fulfil his Scriptural obligation with it?