זבחים 79 — Soncino English Talmud

¹The latter is his own view; the former is his teacher's. For it was taught, R. Judah said on R. Gamaliel's authority: Blood cannot nullify [other] blood; saliva cannot nullify saliva; and urine cannot nullify urine. Raba said: We are discussing a pail which is clean on the inside and unclean on the outside: by law even a small quantity is sufficient, and it was only the Rabbis who enacted a preventive measure, lest one begrudge [the water] and not immerse it. Since then we have an excess [of mikweh water], nothing else is required. Raba said: The Rabbis have said that taste [is the determining factor]; and the Rabbis have said [that we decide] by the majority; and the Rabbis have said that [we go] by appearance. [When] one kind [is mixed] with a different kind, taste [is the determining factor]. [When] one kind [is mixed] with the same kind, the greater part [determines its status]; and where there is appearance, [we go] by looks. Now, [Resh Lakish] disagrees with R. Eleazar. For R. Eleazar said: Just as precepts cannot nullify one another, so can interdicts not nullify one another. Whom do you know to maintain that precepts cannot nullify one another? — It is Hillel. For it was taught: It was related of Hillel the Elder that he used to wrap them together, for it is said, they shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs.12^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ

^ᵃnote:His own view is the lenient one. — The interpretation of this whole passage follows Rashi, Tosaf. urges many objections to this, and gives a different interpretation based on an emended text.
^ᵇnote:In respect to sprinkling; v. supra 35a.
^ᶜnote:The saliva and the urine of a zab (q.v. Glos.), which are unclean, cannot be nullified by those of a clean person, which are clean, even though the latter exceed the former. This is a stringent view, and the similar stringent view above is likewise his teacher's ruling, not his own.
^ᵈnote:E.g., the outside was defiled through unclean water. Such defilement is Rabbinical only, and leaves the inside clean.
^ᵉnote:Even if a little water enters the pail, it becomes clean, since the inside is clean in any case. — A little must enter, so that we can be sure that it has run over the edge, which is unclean.
^ᶠnote:I.e., they ruled that it must be properly immersed, with a considerable quantity of water inside.
^ᵍnote:If he is permitted to immerse the outside only, he may wish to save the water of lustration for further use and not allow even a trickle of mikweh water to enter the pail.
^ʰnote:Raba explains that R. Judah generally agrees with his teacher's stricter ruling, but that here there is a particular reason for his more lenient ruling.
^ⁱnote:Where taste is irrelevant, as e.g., in the case of a mikweh, as above.
^ʲnote:One forbidden thing cannot nullify another. Resh Lakish ruled supra 78a that forbidden things do annul one another.
^ᵏnote:Sc. unleavened bread and bitter herbs and the paschal meat, the eating of which is obligatory on the first evening of Passover.
^ˡnote:Num. IX, 11, Thus he does not hold that the taste of one nullifies the other,

²Our Rabbis taught: As to the shard of a zab and a zabah, the first and second time it is unclean, the third time it is clean. When is that? if one poured water into it; but if one did not pour water into it, it is unclean even the tenth time. R. Eliezer b. Jacob said: At the third time it is clean even if one did not pour water into it. Now, whom do you know to maintain that one kind is not nullified by its own kind? R. Judah. But the following contradicts it: If flax was spun by a niddah, he who moves it is clean; but if it is damp, he who moves it is unclean, on account of the fluid of her mouth. R. Judah said: One also who moistens it in water is unclean, on account of the fluid of her mouth, even [if he washes it] many times! — Said R. Papa: Saliva is different, because it is incrusted. IF IT WAS MIXED WITH THE BLOOD OF UNFIT [ANIMALS], IT MUST BE POURED OUT INTO THE DUCT [etc.] Wherein do they differ? — Said R. Zebid: They differ as to whether a preventive measure is enacted in the Temple: one master holds that we enact a preventive measure, while the other master holds that we do not enact a preventive measure. R. Papa said: All agree that we do enact a preventive measure, but here they disagree as to whether it is usual for the draining blood to exceed the life blood: one master holds that it is common, while the other master holds that it is not common. As for R. Papa, it is well: for that reason he teaches, IF IT WAS MIXED WITH THE BLOOD OF UNFIT [ANIMALS]. IT MUST BE POURED OUT INTO THE DUCT; WITH THE DRAINING BLOOD, IT MUST BE POURED OUT INTO THE DUCT. But according to R. Zebid, let him [the Tanna] combine them and teach them together? — That indeed is a difficulty. MISHNAH. [IF] BLOOD OF WHOLE [UNBLEMISHED] ANIMALS [WAS MIXED] WITH BLOOD OF BLEMISHED ANIMALS, IT MUST BE POURED OUT INTO THE DUCT. [IF] A GOBLET [WAS MIXED UP] WITH OTHER GOBLETS, R. ELIEZER SAID: IF HE [THE PRIEST] OFFERED [SPRINKLED] ONE GOBLET, ALL THE GOBLETS ARE OFFERED; BUT THE SAGES MAINTAIN: EVEN IF THEY OFFERED ALL OF THEM SAVE ONE, IT MUST BE POURED OUT INTO THE DUCT. IF [BLOOD] THAT IS SPRINKLED BELOW WAS MIXED WITH BLOOD THAT IS SPRINKLED ABOVE, R. ELIEZER SAID: HE MUST SPRINKLE [IT] ABOVE, AND I REGARD THE LOWER [BLOOD] ABOVE AS THOUGH IT WERE WATER, AND THEN HE SPRINKLES AGAIN BELOW. BUT THE SAGES MAINTAIN: IT MUST BE POURED OUT INTO THE DUCT. YET IF [THE PRIEST] DID NOT ASK BUT SPRINKLED [IT]. IT IS FIT.^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ

^ᵐnote:The reference is to an earthen bed-chamber used by a zab or zabah, which was broken. The shard thereof, having absorbed their urine, contaminates through carriage, i.e., it defiles anyone who carries it even without actually touching it. Now, if one washed it (the pot) once or twice, it still remains unclean, because that does not suffice to expel the urine; but when one washes it a third time, the urine is held to have been washed out, and so it is clean. That however is only when the pot was washed by pouring water into it each time; if, however, not water but the urine of a clean person (which is ritually clean) was poured into it, this does not render it clean, because they are both of the same kind, viz., urine, and one kind cannot nullify the same kind. R. Eliezer b. Jacob holds that it does nullify, and therefore if it was washed three times, even by pouring the urine of a clean person into it, it is clean.
^ⁿnote:Hence he must be the author of the first ruling in opposition to R. Eliezer b. Jacob.
^ᵒnote:V. Glos.
^ᵖnote:When flax is spun it is moistened with the moisture or saliva of one's mouth. Now, the saliva of a niddah defiles any person who moves it, e.g., when it is on an article, even if he does not touch it; but only as long as it is moist. This explains the passage.
^ᵠnote:As this re-moistens the saliva.
^ʳnote:For the water does not wash it out. This contradicts his statement supra that three washings suffice.
^ˢnote:It becomes hardened in the flax and is difficult to remove.
^ᵗnote:The first Tanna holds that a preventive measure is enacted in the loss of sacred flesh. Therefore, when the blood of a fit sacrifice is mixed with that of an unfit sacrifice or with the draining blood, although the latter may be insufficient to nullify the former, it must be poured out (and hence the sacrifice to which it belonged is declared unfit), as a preventive measure, lest one declare it fit even where the latter is sufficient to nullify the former. (Nevertheless, a preventive measure is not enacted where it is mixed with the blood of an animal or beast that is hullin, because hullin in the Temple court is rare.) R. Eliezer holds that we do not enact a preventive measure, for such would cause the unnecessary loss of sacred flesh. Therefore the mixture is fit for sprinkling unless the unfit blood is so much that if it were water, the fit blood would lose its appearance of blood.
^ᵘnote:When it is mixed with the blood of an unfit animal (which may happen quite frequently), all, even R. Eliezer, agree that we enact a preventive measure, and the rule of the first part of the Mishnah applies. They disagree only where it is mixed with the draining blood: here R. Eliezer holds that a preventive measure is not enacted, since it is rare for the draining blood to exceed the life blood.
^ᵛnote:These are taught as separate clauses because R. Eliezer agrees with one and disagrees with the other.
^ʷnote:As one clause: if it was mixed up with the blood of unfit animals or with the draining blood, it must etc. Only one clause is necessary, since R. Eliezer disagrees with both.
^ˣnote:The former containing blood of blemished animals, the latter blood of whole animals.
^ʸnote:We assume that the first offered was that of the blemished animal, so that the rest are fit.
^ᶻnote:I.e., the blood which should be sprinkled below but was sprinkled above.
^ᵃᵃnote:They reject the view that we can regard the lower blood as water, and hold that you cannot deviate in the rites of same (by sprinkling it above) in order to sprinkle the upper blood.