Zevachim 79a — the Talmud in English

Abaye said: It is not difficult. ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

This

that we learned in tractate Mikvaot, that the water of the purification offering is nullified in the majority, according to Rabbi Yehuda, is his own reasoning

of his.

But

this

that it teaches in the Tosefta of Mikvaot, that a vessel in which there is white wine is regarded as though it were red wine, is according to

his master,

Rabbi Yehuda.

For it was taught: Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabban Gamliel: Blood does not nullify blood,

when two bloods of offerings became mixed, with regard to sprinkling, and likewise with regard to covering the blood, when the blood of a wild animal or bird that is obligated in covering became mixed with the blood of a domesticated animal that is exempt from covering.

And likewise

pure spittle

does not nullify spittle

of a zav that is impure, which became mixed with it.

And pure urine

does not nullify urine

of a zav that is impure, which became mixed with it, even though the pure substances are more numerous than the impure substances.

And Rabban Gamliel’s reason is that he is stringent concerning a mixture of one kind with its own kind.

And just as Rabban Gamliel is stringent when one kind became mixed with its own kind, which is not nullified at all, so too Rabbi Yehuda maintains that Rabban Gamliel is stringent when white wine became mixed with water inside an impure vessel, for the white wine is regarded as though it were red wine [and with one kind mixed with its own kind in the actual sense, Rabban Gamliel is stringent, so that we do not even say “it is regarded”; rather, it has no law of nullification in the majority at all. And white wine that became mixed with water is different, since it is one kind with a different kind, except that the appearance of white wine is not discernible in the water. Therefore, if the white wine was in a quantity such that it would dilute the red wine in the water, it is nullified].

Rava said

in resolving the contradiction in Rabbi Yehuda’s statements: In fact, Rabbi Yehuda follows the approach of his master, Rabban Gamliel, that one kind mixed with its own kind is never nullified, and do not distinguish between Rabbi Yehuda himself and Rabbi Yehuda following the approach of his master.

And it should not be difficult for you why Rabbi Yehuda permitted immersing a vessel containing the water of the purification offering if the immersion-water was more numerous than it, and did not require the water to be so greatly more numerous that even if the water of the purification offering were regarded as though it were wine, the water of the purification offering would not be discernible. For here,

in a vessel whose inside was pure, and

only

its outside

of the vessel was

impure,

as, for example, when it became impure with the impurity of liquids by rabbinic decree, so that only its outside became impure and not its inside,

we are dealing. For by law, any amount of

water that enters its inside is sufficient, so that they cover the rim of the vessel. But the inside of the vessel does not require immersion; therefore, we are not concerned with the interposition of the water of the purification offering inside the vessel.

And

only

the Sages decreed concerning them

that he should also immerse the inside of the vessel. And the reason for the matter is that the Sages decreed this because, if we say that immersing the outside of the vessel [and the entry of water onto its rim alone] is sufficient, there is concern

lest he take pity on them,

on the water of the purification offering found inside the vessel,

and not immerse it

the rim of the vessel, lest the immersion-water become mixed with the water of the purification offering and disqualify it.

And since there is an increase,

that the immersion-water is more numerous than the water of the purification offering,

he no longer needs

to say that the water of the purification offering is regarded as though it were red wine, for the very immersion of the inside of the vessel is only because of the decree, lest he not immerse its rim.

Rava said:

Three laws were stated concerning the law of nullification in the majority.

a.

The Sages said

that nullification in the majority depends

on taste,

if the prohibition is discernible by its taste.

b.

And the Sages said

that nullification in the majority depends on a mixture of a minority

in a majority.

c.

And the Sages said

that nullification in the majority depends

on appearance.

And this is the explanation of the three laws.

a.

One kind with a different kind —

on taste,

as long as the taste of the prohibition is discernible in the mixture, it is forbidden.

b.

One kind with its own kind,

where the taste of the prohibition is not discernible in the permitted substance —

in a majority.

c.

Where there is appearance,

that is, a matter that does not depend on taste, such as sacrificial blood that became mixed, or water invalid for immersion that became mixed, for which the matter depends on appearance,

by appearance. And it disagrees

with what Reish Lakish said: Prohibitions nullify one another,

with Rabbi Elazar.

For Rabbi Elazar said: Just as mitzvot do not nullify one another,

as he explains and proceeds,

so prohibitions do not nullify one another.

And the Gemara explains:

Whom do you hear saying that mitzvot do not nullify one another —

It is Hillel.

For it was taught: They said about Hillel the Elder that he would wrap them

with the flesh of the Passover offering, with matza, and with bitter herbs

at once —

and eat them, because it is stated: “With matzot and bitter herbs shall they eat it.”

And we do not say that the taste of the bitter herb comes and nullifies the taste of the matza.