Zevachim 79b (עט:) — the Talmud in English

The Sages taught:

A clay vessel for urine absorbed urine into its clay, and that urine had belonged to a zav or a zava, whose urine imparts impurity through carrying even when absorbed into clay. If the vessel broke and its shards fell into the airspace of the [clay] oven, the oven becomes impure, as does a clay vessel into which an av hatumah falls, even though the zav’s urine is absorbed into the shards and is not visible. Since the impure urine is destined to emerge from the shards through the heat of the oven’s firing, it renders the oven impure even before it emerges from the shards.

Therefore,

the shards of a zav or a zava,

that is, clay in which the urine of a zav or a zava has been absorbed, placed inside an oven, and which had previously been “washed” by rinsing it with water,

the first time, and

the

second time,

the oven is

impure.

Because rinsing the clay with water only twice does not extract the impure urine absorbed in the clay; rather, it remains absorbed in it, and once the shards enter the oven, it emerges as a result of the oven’s firing. Therefore, it renders the oven impure before it emerges from the shards. Only if they rinsed it a

third

time, at which point all the urine had already emerged from the clay during the third rinsing, is the oven

pure.

In what circumstance is this statement said

that after the third rinsing the clay is clean of the zav’s urine and the oven is pure? It is when one

put into it

the clay

water

three times, for only in this way was the clay “washed,” and it no longer contains impure urine.

But

if he

did not put into it

the clay

water,

but instead put into it the urine of a pure person,

even

on the

tenth

occasion, it remains

impure,

because one species does not nullify another of the same species, and the zav’s urine remains in the clay.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says:

On the

third

occasion on which he rinsed the clay,

even though he did not put water into it,

but only the urine of a pure person, the clay is clean of the zav’s urine, and the oven is

pure.

And the Gemara infers:

Who is the one who taught that one species does not nullify another of the same species,

which means that it is the first tanna who disagrees here with Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov?

It is Rabbi Yehuda,

as we said above in accordance with Rava: Rabbi Yehuda agrees with his teacher, Rabban Gamliel, that one species does not nullify another of the same species. Accordingly, it is Rabbi Yehuda who said that liquids absorbed in clay emerge from it when water is put into it three times.

And we raise a contradiction

to this, ostensibly, from what we learned in the Tosefta to tractate Toharot [chapter 4]:

Linen spun by a menstruating woman

need not be suspected of having impure saliva on it, which the menstruating woman spat onto it and which would render one who moves it impure, because the saliva has already dried and no longer imparts impurity. Therefore, one who

moves it,

that linen, is

pure.

But if there was

saliva on it that was

moist

and belonged to a menstruating woman, then

the one who moves it is impure

by the law of impurity through carrying,

because it is the liquid from her mouth

of a menstruating woman, which imparts impurity through carrying by being moved.

Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if one moistens it,

that is, moistens the dried saliva

with water,

it is

impure

through being moved, since once the saliva has again become moist, it imparts impurity

because it is the liquid from her mouth.

And the Gemara infers: Since it did not state a measure for the number of times one moistens the dried saliva, it indicates that

even

if he washes it

many times,

it remains impure.

Why? We proved from the case of the clay of a zav that when water is put into it three times, the urine absorbed in it emerges from it.

And we answer:

Saliva is different,

as it does not emerge from the linen through washing because

it is cold,

meaning that it penetrates the linen forcefully, and it is unlike urine absorbed in clay, which emerges easily.

We learned in the Mishna:

If the blood of valid consecrated offerings

became mixed

with the blood of those unfit,

it must be poured into the channel. If the blood of the soul became mixed with the blood of the residue, it must be poured into the channel. Rabbi Eliezer deems it fit.

And we raised the issue:

With regard to what do

the first tanna and Rabbi Eliezer

disagree?

Rav Zevid said: Here we are dealing with a case in which there was a majority of valid blood and a minority of unfit blood. By Torah law, the blood is fit for sprinkling, but there is room for the Sages to decree that it may not be sprinkled, lest people err and come to deem it fit for sprinkling even when a minority of valid blood became mixed with a majority of unfit blood [to the extent that the mixture would not contain even a minority of valid blood capable of imparting the appearance of blood to water in such a measure]. And here,

they disagree about whether a decree is issued in the Temple.

The first tanna and Rabbi Eliezer disagree as to whether we decree that the blood be poured into the channel, or whether the Sages did not issue a decree in a case involving the loss of consecrated offerings.

One Master,

the first tanna,

holds that we issue such decrees, whereas the other Master,

Rabbi Eliezer,

holds that we do not issue them.

Rav Pappa said: Everyone

agrees that

we issue

a decree in the Temple.

And here,

they disagreed only with regard to the blood of the residue. With regard to the other types of unfit blood that are common in the Temple, Rabbi Eliezer agrees that one must be concerned and issue a decree despite the loss of consecrated offerings. But with regard to the blood of the residue [which is unfit for sprinkling], Rabbi Eliezer holds that a decree should not be issued, because it is not common for it to invalidate the blood of the soul, unlike the other types of unfit blood. It follows that

with regard to the blood of the residue,

if it is

common for it to exceed the blood of the soul

until it nullifies it,

they disagree.

One Master,

the first tanna,

holds that it is common

for the blood of the residue to exceed the blood of the soul; therefore, we issue a decree.

And the other Master,

Rabbi Eliezer,

holds that it is not common;

therefore, we do not issue a decree with regard to it as we do with regard to a mixture of the other unfit bloods.

And we raised the issue:

Granted, according to Rav Pappa,

who established the dispute between the first tanna and Rabbi Eliezer as referring only to the blood of the residue,

this is why it teaches

in the Mishna two separate statements: The first is,

if it became mixed with the blood of those unfit—

it must be poured into the channel.

Rabbi Eliezer does not disagree with this. And the second is: If it became mixed

with the blood of the residue—

it must be poured into the channel.

Rabbi Eliezer disagrees with this and deems it fit.

But, according to Rav Zevid,

who established their dispute as applying both to unfit blood and to the blood of the residue—for they disagree about the fundamental issue of whether a decree is issued in a case involving the loss of consecrated offerings—why did he teach them as two separate cases?

Let him combine them and teach them:

The blood must be poured into the channel, and Rabbi Eliezer disagrees and deems both mixtures fit!?

And we conclude:

The matter remains difficult.

Mishna:

a.

The blood

of unblemished offerings that became mixed

with the blood

of

blemished animals,

which is common blood—the Sages were concerned that people might come to deem it fit for sprinkling even when the blood of the blemished animals exceeded the blood of the unblemished animals. Therefore, they decreed that

it must be poured into the channel.

b. But if

a cup

of the blood of blemished animals became mixed

with cups

containing the blood of unblemished animals, then, initially, none of the blood in any of the cups may be sprinkled. Rather, all of them must be poured into the channel, according to everyone. However, Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages disagree if one transgressed and sprinkled from the cups.

Rabbi Eliezer says: If

after the fact,

one cup was offered

from among the cups,

the cups

that remain may now

all be offered.

Since the prohibition against sprinkling them is only by rabbinic decree, the Sages were lenient with the severity of the decree when it is possible to “attribute” the matter and say that the cup that had already been offered was the cup containing the blood of blemished animals, while the other cups that remained contain the blood of unblemished animals, even though there is no logical basis for this attribution.

And the Sages say:

The Sages were not lenient even in a case where it is possible to “attribute” the matter. Therefore,

even if

all of them had already been

offered,

all the cups that had been mixed together,

except for one of them,

we do not attribute the matter and say that the cup containing the blood of blemished animals had already been offered among the majority of cups whose blood was sprinkled. Rather, even the last cup is prohibited because of that decree, and therefore

the blood

of the cup must be poured

into the channel.

c. Bloods

that are placed

on the wall of the altar

below

the scarlet line, such as the blood of a burnt-offering and peace-offerings,

that became mixed with

bloods that are

placed above,

on the horns of the altar, which are above the scarlet line, namely, the blood placements of a sin-offering—

Rabbi Eliezer says: He should place

some of the mixture

above,

thereby fulfilling the mitzva of placing the blood of the sin-offering above, and he does not transgress by placing the blood of the burnt-offering and peace-offerings in the wrong place, because

I regard the

blood of

those below

that is present in the mixture and is now placed

above as though it were merely water.

Since he is not placing it in order to fulfill its mitzva, but only because it is mixed with the blood of the sin-offering and cannot be separated from it, it is considered as though he placed water on the altar.

And he should again place

some of the mixture

below,

and this placement fulfills his mitzva of placing the blood of the burnt-offering and peace-offerings below, while the placement of the sin-offering’s blood contained in the mixture fulfills his mitzva of pouring the remainder of the sin-offering’s blood, which is also a mitzva and is performed at the lower part of the altar. [And the reason he places the blood of the sin-offering above first is the law that sin-offerings must precede burnt-offerings].

And the Sages say:

We do not say that the blood placed below is “regarded” as though it were water, and it is prohibited to change the place of its placement and place it above in order to fulfill the mitzva of placing the blood of a sin-offering above. Therefore,

it must be poured

all the blood

into the channel.

d.

And if he did not consult

the priest who was placing the blood—that is, he did not ask whether it was permitted to place it—

and placed

the blood above and afterward below, it is

valid.

He has fulfilled his obligation both with regard to the sin-offering and with regard to the burnt-offering.