Zevachim 78b — the Talmud in English

Rather,

even Reish Lakish holds that the law of imparting flavor is of Torah origin, and Reish Lakish was not speaking of pigul, notar, and impurity in two species, such as meat and a meal-offering, as we had thought, but rather if they became mixed

one species with another species

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

by flavor,

for as long as the flavor is discernible, the prohibition is not nullified, even though it is mixed with a majority of another species.

But if the mixture was

one species with its own species,

and this is what Reish Lakish was speaking about—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 species becomes mixed with its own species, is it nullified by a mere majority?

And why

not

estimate

the mixture of

one species with its own species

as though it were a mixture of

one species with another species,

so that if it imparted flavor, there would not be a law of nullification by a majority?

And there is proof that when one species becomes mixed with its own species, we estimate it as though the mixture were one species with another species, and estimate whether in such a mixture there would have been imparting of flavor, from this:

as 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 regard it

the wine

as though it were water

and estimate whether the appearance of the blood would have been discernible in such a measure of water.

Is it not

indeed the intention of the Mishna to say—

we regard the wine as though it were water,

and, if so, the same is the law regarding imparting flavor: We should estimate when it became mixed with its own species as though it became mixed with another species, and estimate the flavor?

And we reject this:

No,

this is not the intention of the Mishna. Rather—

we regard the blood as though it were water.

And the Mishna comes to say that the law of blood that became mixed is determined by appearance, and when it became mixed with wine in which the appearance of the blood was not discernible, it is nullified by the majority.

And we raise a difficulty:

If so,

why did the tanna of our Mishna state the expression “we regard it as though it were water,” when

“it is nullified” should have been said

to state that this is its law?

Furthermore,

there is a difficulty, for

it was taught

in the Tosefta of Mikvaot: A defiled bucket that is full of wine, and one came 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 water of the mikveh, it forms a barrier between the water of the mikveh and the vessel, and immersion has not availed for the vessel.

And if there was white wine in the vessel, whose appearance is like that of the water of the mikveh,

Rabbi Yehuda says: We regard it,

the white wine,

as though it were red wine,

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

lightened the appearance

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

fit

for immersion, since the white wine inside it does not constitute a barrier.

But if not,

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

unfit

for immersion.

And we see from here that we say, “We regard it” as though it were red wine whose appearance is discernible. If so, why do we not say “We regard it” regarding a species that became mixed with its own species, as though it became mixed with another species, so that if in such a measure there would have been imparting of flavor, it would be prohibited?

And we answer: The matter of whether we say “we regard it” is a dispute between

tannaim

.

It was taught: A bucket

that is defiled

in which there is white wine or

in which there is

milk, and they immersed it—

we follow the majority.

And if there is in the vessel a mixture of a majority of water and a minority of white wine or milk, its immersion has availed for it, because the appearance of the wine or the milk is not discernible in the water.

Rabbi Yehuda says: We regard it

the white wine or the milk

as though it were red wine, so that if

it were present in a small measure, until

it lightened the appearance

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

fit

for immersion;

but if not,

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

And it is proven from this beraita that the matter of “we regard it” is 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 defiled

which is full of spittle, and they immersed it—

it is as though they had not immersed it.

For the spittle, which is thick, constitutes a barrier between the vessel and the water of the mikveh. And if there were in the vessel

urine,

it is as though the vessel were full of water, which does not constitute a barrier; and when the water of the mikveh comes into contact with the urine, the urine becomes a connection to the water of the mikveh, and immersion has availed for the vessel, because

we regard 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 importance of their sanctity, and because they render one who touches them impure with the severity of one who touches a primary source of impurity; therefore immersion has not availed for the vessel

until the water

of the mikveh entering the vessel

exceeds the waters of purification

that are in it.

And the Gemara infers: It was stated regarding the urine that “we regard them” as though they were water.

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

in the latter clause, regarding waters of purification that became mixed,

that a majority suffices for it,

and we do not say that we regard the waters of purification as though they were red wine, so that as long as the appearance has not been lightened, they constitute a barrier?!