Zevachim 79b — the Talmud in English

The Sages taught:

A chamber pot made of earthenware, which absorbed urine, and that urine belonged to a zav or a zava, whose urine conveys impurity through carrying even while absorbed in earthenware: if the chamber pot broke and its shards fell into the airspace of the earthenware oven, the oven is impure, in accordance with the law of an earthenware vessel into which a primary source of impurity falls, even though the zav’s urine is absorbed inside the shards and is not visible. For since the impure urine is destined to emerge from the shards through the heat of the oven’s firing, the oven becomes impure from it before it emerges from the shards.

Therefore,

a shard of a zav or a zava,

that is, earthenware absorbed with the urine of a zav or a zava, placed inside an oven, and beforehand the shard was “washed” by rinsing it with water,

the first time, and

the time

second,

the oven

is impure.

Because by merely rinsing the shard with water twice, the impure urine absorbed in the shard does not emerge, but continues to be absorbed in it; and once it enters the oven, it emerges because of the firing of the oven, and therefore conveys impurity to the oven before emerging from the shards. Only if they rinsed it a time

third,

when in the third rinsing all the urine had already emerged from the shard, the oven is

pure.

In what case are these words stated

that after the third rinsing the shard is clean of the zav’s urine and the oven is pure? In a case

where he put into it

of the shard

water

three times, for only through this was the shard “washed,” and there is no longer impure urine in it.

But

if

he did not put into it

of the shard

water,

but put into it the urine of a pure person,

even

on the

tenth time, it is

impure,

impure,

because a substance of the same kind is not nullified by one of its own kind, and the zav’s urine remains in the shard.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says:

On the

third

time that he rinsed the shard,

even though he did not put water into it, but only the urine of a pure person, the shard is clean of the zav’s urine, and the oven is

but only the urine of a ritually pure person, the shards are free of the urine of the person with the discharge, and the oven is

pure.

And the Gemara infers:

Whom do you hear saying that a substance of the same kind is not nullified by one of its own kind?

It is the first tanna, who disputes here with Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov:

Rabbi Yehuda

is he. And as we said above according to Rava: Rabbi Yehuda holds in accordance with Rabban Gamliel, his teacher, that a substance of the same kind is not nullified by one of its own kind. Accordingly, it is Rabbi Yehuda who said that liquids absorbed in earthenware emerge from it through putting in water three times.

And we raise a contradiction

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

Flax that a menstruant spun

there is no concern lest impure saliva be upon it, which the menstruant spat on it and which conveys impurity to one who moves it, since the saliva has already dried and no longer conveys impurity. Therefore, one who

moves it

the flax, is

pure.

And if there was

saliva upon it

moist

of a menstruant, then

the one who moves it is impure

by the law of impurity through carrying,

because of the fluid of her mouth

of the menstruant, which conveys impurity through carrying by moving.

Rabbi Yehuda says: Even one who moistens it,

moistening the dried saliva,

with water,

is

impure

through moving it, since once the saliva has again become moist, it conveys impurity

because of the fluid of her mouth.

And the Gemara infers: Since it did not teach a measure for the number of times that he moistens the dried saliva, this implies

even

if he washes it

many times,

it is impure.

And why? We proved from the shard of a zav that by putting water in it three times, the urine absorbed in it emerges from it.

And we answer:

Saliva is different,

for it does not emerge from the flax through washing because

it is cold,

for it enters the flax forcefully, and it is unlike urine absorbed in earthenware, which emerges easily.

We learned in the Mishna:

If the blood of valid sacred offerings became mixed

with

the blood of the disqualified offerings,

it shall be poured into the channel. If the blood of the life became mixed with the blood of the residue, it shall be poured into the channel. Rabbi Eliezer deems it valid.

And we deliberated about it:

Over what do

the first tanna and Rabbi Eliezer

disagree?

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

they disagree about whether we issue a decree in the Temple.

They disagree whether we decree that the blood be poured into the channel, or whether the Sages did not decree in a place where their decree causes a loss of sacred offerings.

One master

the first tanna

holds that we issue a decree, and one master

Rabbi Eliezer

holds that we do not issue a decree.

Rav Pappa said: Everyone

holds that

we issue

a decree in the Temple.

And here,

they disagreed only concerning the blood of the residue. With regard to the other disqualified bloods that are common in the Temple, Rabbi Eliezer agrees that one must be concerned and issue a decree despite the loss of the sacred offerings. But with regard to the blood of the residue [which is disqualified for sprinkling], Rabbi Eliezer holds that one should not issue a decree, because it is not common for it to disqualify the blood of the life like the other disqualified bloods. It follows that

with regard to the blood of the residue,

if it were

common for it to become more numerous than the blood of the life

until it nullified it,

they disagree.

One master,

the first tanna,

holds that it is common

for the blood of the residue to become more numerous than the blood of the life; therefore, we issue a decree.

And one master,

Rabbi Eliezer,

holds that it is not common;

therefore, we do not issue a decree concerning it, as we decree concerning a mixture of the other disqualified bloods.

And we deliberated about it:

Granted, according to Rav Pappa,

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

this is why it taught

in the Mishna two separate statements: the first,

if it became mixed with the blood of the disqualified offerings —

it shall be poured into the channel.

And Rabbi Eliezer did not dispute this. And the second: if it became mixed

with the blood of the residue —

it shall be poured into the channel.

And in this Rabbi Eliezer disputes it and deems it valid.

But according to Rav Zevid,

who established their dispute as concerning both disqualified blood and the blood of the residue, since they disputed the fundamental matter of whether we issue a decree in a place where there is a loss of sacred offerings, why did it teach them in two separate statements?

Let it combine them and teach them:

they shall be poured into the channel, and Rabbi Eliezer disputes it and deems both valid!?

And we conclude:

It is 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 lest people come to deem it valid for sprinkling even where the blood of the blemished animals becomes more numerous than the blood of the unblemished animals. Therefore, they decreed concerning it that it

shall 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, one does not sprinkle the blood in all of them; rather, all of them shall be poured into the channel, according to everyone. But Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages dispute if one transgressed and sprinkled from the cups.

Rabbi Eliezer says: If

after the fact, one

cup has already been offered

from the cups,

all the cups shall now be offered.

Now

all the cups.

Since the prohibition against sprinkling them is only because of a rabbinic decree, the Sages were lenient concerning the stringency of the decree if it is possible to “attribute” and say that the cup that had already been offered was the cup containing the blood of the blemished animals, while the remaining cups contain the blood of the unblemished animals, even though there is no basis for this attribution.

And the Sages say:

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

even if all

already

had been offered,

all the cups that had been mixed together,

except for one of them,

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

shall be poured

the blood of the cup

into the channel.

c. Bloods

that are given

on the wall of the altar

below

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

that became mixed with

bloods that are

given above,

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

Rabbi Eliezer says: He shall give

from the mixture’s blood first

above,

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

I regard the

blood

of those below

present in the mixture and now given

above as though they were merely water.

Since he does not give them for the purpose of fulfilling their mitzva, but only because they are mixed with the blood of the sin-offering and cannot be separated, it is considered as though he had put water on the altar.

And he shall again give

from the mixture’s blood

below,

and this giving will count for him as fulfillment of the mitzva of giving the blood of the burnt-offering and the peace-offerings below, while the giving of the sin-offering’s blood in the mixture will count for him as the pouring of the remainder of the sin-offering’s blood, which is also a mitzva, and it is performed at the lower part of the altar. [And the reason he gives the blood of the sin-offering above first is that there is a law that sin-offerings are to precede burnt-offerings].

And the Sages say:

We do not say that we “regard” the blood of those below as though it were water, and it is forbidden to alter the place of their giving and give them above for the purpose of fulfilling the mitzva of giving the blood of a sin-offering above. Therefore,

it shall be poured

all the blood

into the channel.

d.

And if he did not consult

the koen who gives the blood, not asking whether it was permitted to give it,

and gave

the blood above and afterward below, it is

valid.

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