Zevachim 79a (עט.) — the Talmud in English

Abaye said: This is not difficult.

precise page location

This

that we learned in tractate Mikvaot, that the water containing the ashes of the red heifer is nullified in a majority according to Rabbi Yehuda, is his own reasoning;

his.

Whereas

this

that we learned in the Tosefta of Mikvaot, that a vessel containing white wine is viewed as though it contained red wine, follows

his master’s

—Rabbi Yehuda’s.

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

when two types of sacrificial blood 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 subject to the mitzva of covering became mixed with the blood of a domesticated animal that is exempt from covering.

And likewise,

pure saliva

does not nullify saliva

of a zav, which is impure, when it is mixed with it.

And pure urine

does not nullify urine

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

Rabban Gamliel’s reason is that he is stringent with regard to a mixture of one species with the same species.

Just as Rabban Gamliel is stringent when one species becomes mixed with the same species, in which case it is not nullified at all, so too Rabbi Yehuda understood that Rabban Gamliel is stringent when white wine becomes mixed with water in an impure vessel, such that the white wine is viewed as though it were red wine. [With regard to an actual mixture of one species with the same species, Rabban Gamliel is even more stringent: We do not say “it is viewed” at all; rather, it has no status of nullification in a majority. White wine that becomes mixed with water is different, as it is a mixture of one species with another species, except that the appearance of white wine is not discernible in the water. Therefore, if the white wine was present in an amount sufficient to dilute red wine in the water, it is subject to nullification.]

Rava said

in resolving the contradiction between Rabbi Yehuda’s statements: In fact, Rabbi Yehuda follows the position of his master, Rabban Gamliel, that one species mixed with the same species is never nullified; and do not distinguish between Rabbi Yehuda’s own position and Rabbi Yehuda’s position in accordance with his master.

And do not raise a difficulty against this: Why did Rabbi Yehuda deem it fit to immerse a vessel containing water with the ashes of the red heifer if the waters of the ritual bath were more numerous than it, rather than requiring the water to be present in such great quantity that even if the water with the ashes of the red heifer were viewed as wine, it would not be discernible? Here,

we are dealing with 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, in which case only its outside became impure and not its inside.

As a matter of law, any amount

of water that enters the vessel is sufficient, provided that it covers the rim of the vessel. But the inside of the vessel does not require immersion; therefore, we are not concerned with the interposition caused by the water with the ashes of the red heifer inside the vessel.

And

only

the Sages decreed concerning them

that the inside of the vessel must also be immersed. The reason the Sages issued this decree is that if it were said that immersing the outside of the vessel, with water entering only over its rim, were sufficient, there would be concern

that perhaps he would have regard for them

—for the water with the ashes of the red heifer inside the vessel—

and would not immerse it

—the rim of the vessel—in order to avoid the possibility that the waters of the ritual bath would mix with the water containing the ashes of the red heifer and disqualify it.

And since there is an increase

in the waters of the ritual bath, which are more numerous than the water with the ashes of the red heifer,

there is no longer a need

to say that the water with the ashes of the red heifer is viewed as though it were red wine, since the immersion of the inside of the vessel itself is required only because of the decree lest he fail to immerse its rim.

Rava said:

Three laws were stated with regard to nullification in a majority.

a.

The Sages said

that nullification in a majority depends

on taste,

if the taste of the forbidden substance is discernible.

b.

And the Sages said

that nullification in a majority depends on a minority becoming mixed

with a majority.

c.

And the Sages said

that nullification in a majority depends

on appearance.

This is the explanation of these three laws.

a.

One species mixed with another species—

on taste,

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

b.

One species mixed with the same species,

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

on a majority.

c.

Where there is an appearance,

that is, a matter that does not depend on taste, such as sacrificial blood that became mixed, or water disqualified for immersion that became mixed, since it depends on appearance,

in appearance. And this disagrees

with what Reish Lakish said: Prohibited substances nullify one another, contrary to

Rabbi Elazar.

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

as the Gemara will explain,

so too prohibited substances do not nullify one another.

And the Gemara explains:

Whom do you hear who says that mitzvot do not nullify one another?

It is Hillel.

For it was taught in a beraita: They said about Hillel the Elder that he would wrap

the meat of the Paschal offering, matza, and maror

together—

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 maror comes and nullifies the taste of the matza.