Zevachim 78b (עח:) — the Talmud in English

Rather,

Reish Lakish, too, holds that the law of imparting flavor is of Torah origin, and Reish Lakish was not speaking of pigul, notar, and tamei in two different types, such as meat and a meal-offering, as we had initially thought. Rather, if they became mixed

one type with another type,

and the flavor of one was discernible in the other, Reish Lakish agrees that one is liable to receive lashes for it by Torah law, and the measure determining nullification is established

by the flavor,

for as long as the flavor is discernible, the prohibition is not nullified, despite its being mixed with a majority of another type.

But if the mixture was

one type with its own type,

which is what Reish Lakish was discussing, namely, that meat became mixed with meat and the flavor of one was not discernible in the other, then it is nullified

by the majority.

And we raise a difficulty: Why, when one type becomes mixed with its own type, is it nullified by a mere majority

and why

do we not

assess

the mixture of

one type with its own type

as though it were a mixture of

one type with another type,

so that if it imparted flavor, it would not be subject to nullification by a majority?

And there is proof that when one type becomes mixed with its own type, we assess it as though the mixture were one type with another type, and determine whether such a mixture would have imparted flavor, from that which

we learned

in our Mishna: Blood that

became mixed with wine

and the blood is not discernible because its appearance is red like the appearance of the wine,

we see

the wine

as though it were water

and assess whether the appearance of the blood would have been discernible in such an amount of water.

Is it not

indeed the intention of the Mishna to say

“we see the wine as though it were water,”

and, if so, the same should apply to the law of imparting flavor: We should assess a substance that became mixed with its own type as though one type became mixed with another type, and assess the flavor?

And we reject this:

No,

this is not the intention of the Mishna. Rather,

“we see the blood as though it were water.”

The Mishna is saying that the law governing blood that became mixed is determined by appearance: When it became mixed with wine, in which the appearance of the blood was not discernible, it is nullified by a majority.

And we raise a difficulty:

If so,

why did the tanna of our Mishna formulate it by saying “we see it as though it were water”? It should have said

“it is nullified,”

as that is its law.

Furthermore,

there is a difficulty, as

it was taught

in the Tosefta of Mikvaot: With regard to an impure bucket that is full of wine, when one comes to immerse the bucket in a mikveh in order to purify it from its impurity, if the appearance of the wine in the vessel is discernible within the waters of the mikveh, it interposes between the waters of the mikveh and the vessel, and the immersion is not effective for the vessel.

But if the vessel contained white wine, whose appearance is like that of the waters of the mikveh,

Rabbi Yehuda says: We see it,

the white wine,

as though it were red wine,

and if it was present in such a small amount that it

diluted the appearance

of the red wine and was not discernible in the water, then the vessel is

fit

for immersion, as the white wine inside it does not constitute an interposition.

But if not,

that is, if there is white wine in an amount such that, had it been red wine, it would have been discernible, then the vessel containing such an amount of white wine is

unfit

for immersion.

And we see from here that we say “we see it” as though it were red wine, whose appearance is discernible. If so, why do we not say “we see” in the case of one type that became mixed with its own type, treating it as though it had become mixed with another type, and determine whether such an amount would have imparted flavor?

And we answer:

It is a dispute among the tannaim

whether we say “we see.”

It was taught: A bucket

that is impure

that contains white wine or

that contains

milk, and one immersed it—

we follow the majority.

If the vessel contains a mixture of a majority of water and a minority of white wine or milk, its immersion is effective, because the appearance of the wine or milk is not discernible in the water.

Rabbi Yehuda says: We see it,

the white wine or the milk,

as though it were red wine, such that if

it were present in a small amount, to the extent

that it diluted the appearance

of the red wine and it was not discernible in the water, then the vessel is

fit

for immersion;

but if not,

that is, if the wine had been red it would have been discernible, then that vessel is unfit for immersion.

And it is demonstrated from this beraita that the matter of “we see” is the subject of a dispute between the first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda.

And we raise a contradiction

to this, apparently, from what we learned in tractate Mikvaot:

A bucket

that is impure

that is full of saliva, and one immersed it—

it is as though he had not immersed it.

Saliva, which is thick, constitutes an interposition between the vessel and the waters of the mikveh. But if there were

urine

in the vessel, it is as though the vessel were full of water, which does not constitute an interposition. And when the waters of the mikveh come into contact with the urine, the urine becomes connected to the waters of the mikveh, and the immersion is effective for the vessel, because

“we see” them

the urine

as though they were water,

even though their appearance differs somewhat from that of water.

And if the vessel was

full of waters of purification,

they are not considered water, because of the significance of their sanctity, and because they impart impurity to one who touches them, like something touched by one who touches a primary source of ritual impurity. Therefore, the immersion is not effective for the vessel

until the waters

of the mikveh that enter the vessel

exceed the waters of purification

that are inside it.

And the Gemara analyzes: It was stated with regard to urine that “we see” it as though it were water.

Who is the one from whom you heard that he holds “we see”? Rabbi Yehuda. And it was taught

in the latter clause, with regard to waters of purification that became mixed,

that a majority suffices for it,

and we do not say that we see the waters of purification as though they were red wine, so that as long as the appearance has not been diluted they constitute an interposition!?