ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Zevachim 78
ZEVACHIM 77-78 - Dedicated to the leaders and participants in the Dafyomi
shiurim at the Young Israel of New Rochelle, by Andy & Nancy Neff
(a) Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan restricts the opening ruling in
our Mishnah to where the water fell into the blood, but not vice-versa. What
he mean is - that if the blood fell into the water, the Kohen will not be
permitted to sprinkle it even if, at the end, the mixture resembles blood
(b) ... because each drop that falls into the water becomes Bateil to the
water, and does not join retroactively with the drops that drip into the
water after it ('Ein Chozer ve'Ni'ur').
(c) Rav Papa adds that this is not the case regarding Kisuy ha'Dam, by which
he means - that under similar circumstances, the blood of a Shechted bird or
wild animal, would still be subject to the Mitzvah of Kisuy ha'Dam ...
(d) ... because of the principle 'Ein Dichuy be'Mitzvos' (in other words, we
do apply the principle 'Chozer ve'Ni'ur' to Mitzvos, only not to Kedushah).
(a) Resh Lakish rules that if someone mixes a k'Zayis of Pigul with a
k'Zayis of Nosar and a k'Zayis of Tamei and eats them together - he is Patur
from Malkos, because it is impossible that, as he chews them and swallows
bits at a time, one or another of the Isurim should not become a minority in
his mouth, and therefore become Bateil.
(b) Consequently, even though the other kind or kinds do not become Bateil,
seeing as at the time of the warning, it is impossible to know which is
which - we apply the principle 'Hasra'as Safek Lo Sh'mah Hasra'ah' (a Safek
warning is not considered a warning).
(c) Besides the Chidush of Hasra'as Safek, we learn from here that Isurin
are Mevatel one another. We might otherwise have thought - that Isurin only
become Bateil in Heter, but not in other Isurin.
(d) The third thing we learn from here with regard to 'Nosen Ta'am' is -
when a minority of Isur gives taste to a majority of Heter ('Nosen Ta'am
be'Rov') it is only Asur mi'de'Rabbanan (otherwise, he ought to receive
(a) Rice, which is not one of the five species of grain - is not subject to
(b) The Beraisa rules that a dough that is made of wheat and rice, is Chayav
Chalah, even assuming that the latter is in the majority - provided it
tastes like wheat.
(c) If 'Nosen Ta'am' is only mi'de'Rabbanan, such a dough is Chayav Chalah -
(a) The Seifa of the Beraisa adds - that one is Yotze with such a dough,
one's obligation of Matzah on Pesach (repudiating the current theory that
'Nosen Ta'am' is mi'de'Rabbanan).
(b) We therefore conclude 'Ela Miyn be'she'Eino Miyno be'Ta'ama', and we
establish the case of Resh Lakish - where all three Isurim consist of the
same kind (either meat of Kodshim or Sheyarei Menachos), to explain why we
go there after the Rov, and not after the taste.
(a) Having just concluded 'Miyn be'she'Eino be'Ta'ama, Miyn be'Miyno
be'Ruba', we query the second half of the statement - on the grounds that we
ought to apply 'Ro'in' there, and to say 'Ro'in Oso ke'Ilu Hu Eino Miyno',
to forbid it as long as the Isur still gives a taste.
(b) And we base this Kashya on the opening case of 'Ro'in' in our Mishnah.
Initially, we interpret 'Nis'areiv be'Yayin, Ro'in Oso keI'lu Hu Mayim' to
mean - that we consider the wine as if it was water, to permit the wine to
be sprinkled ...
(c) ... a proof - that 'Ro'in' by Miyn be'Miyno overrides Rov (mi'd'Oraysa,
see Tosfos DH 'u'Nesha'er').
(d) We try to answer that *'Ro'in'* refers to the blood (and not to the
wine) - in which case the Tana is actually being Machmir, rendering the
blood Bateil in the wine be'Rov (forbidding it to be sprinkled). In any
case, 'Ro'in' enhances the Rov (rather than negates it).
(a) We query this latter explanation however, from the Lashon of the
Beraisa - which ought then to have used a Lashon of Bitul (rather than
(b) We also ask from Rebbi Yehudah, who rules in a Beraisa that if a bucket
contains white wine or milk, one may Tovel it provided that, assuming the
current contents was red wine, the water of the Mikveh that fills the bucket
would negate the appearance of the wine ...
(c) ... a proof that 'Ro'in' gives Miyn be'Miyno the Din of Miyn be'she'Eino
Miyno (and even negates the Rov), like we explained originally?
(d) And we answer the basic Kashya - by establishing 'Miyn be'Miyno be'Rubo'
(ignoring the principle of 'Ro'in') like the Tana Kama of Rebbi Yehudah, who
does not hold of 'Ro'in' at all (but goes after the Rov).
(a) Another Beraisa rules that if one Tovels a bucket full of spit, the
Tevilah is not valid, whereas if it is full of urine, we view it as if it
was water. The reason for ...
1. ... the first ruling is - because spit is thick, as a result of which a.
it constitutes a Chatzitzah before the water, and b. it does not become
Bateil to it.
(b) The Tana rules in a similar case where the bucket is full of Mei
Chatas - that the Tevilah is valid, provided the Mikveh water exceeds the
2. ... the second ruling is - because since urine is a kind of water, we
view it as if it was actual water. Otherwise, it would require a Rov.
(c) Despite the fact that the Mei Chatas is also a kind of water, the Tana
is more stringent in this case, than in the previous one - on account of the
Kedushah and Chashivus of the Mei Chatas (and we have already learned that
Chashivus often interferes with Bitul).
(a) We establish the author of the Beraisa as Rebbi Yehudah - because in the
case of Mei Raglayim, he applies the principle of 'Ro'in' (And the Tana who
holds 'Ro'in' is Rebbi Yehudah).
(b) The problem is then why in the Seifa - he does not apply 'Ro'in' (to
view the Mei Chatas as if it was red wine, which would then require Ta'ama
[or Chazuta], like Miyn be'she'Eino Miyno [and not just Rov]).
(a) Abaye answers with another Beraisa, where Rebbi Yehudah rules - 'Dam
Eino Mevatel Dam', 'Rok Eino Mevatel Rok' and 'Mei Raglayim Ein Mevatlin Mei
(b) The significance of the second ...
1. ... Dam is - with regard to either the Zerikah of a Korban or the Kisuy
ha'Dam of a Shechted wild animal or bird.
(c) Rebbi Yehudah quotes this ruling - in the name of his Rebbe, Raban
2. ... Rok and Mei Raglayim is - with regard to the spit of a Zav.
(d) Abaye learns from there - that when Rebbi Yehudah holds 'Ro'in' with
regard to Miyn be'Miyno, he is quoting the opinion of Raban Gamliel (who is
Machmir there, like he is Machmir regarding Miyn be'Miyno), but that he
himself, who concedes the S'vara of Ro'in' to consider Mei Raglayim as if it
was water, does not agree with it as regards being Mevatel a Rov.
(a) Rava disagrees with Abaye. According to him, Rebbi Yehudah agrees with
Raban Gamliel, and he establishes the Beraisa by a bucket that is Tamei on
the outside, but Tahor on the inside - which is the case with regard to
Tum'as Mashkin mi'de'Rabbanan.
(b) Consequently, even though Rebbi Yehudah generally holds 'Ro'in', he will
decline to apply it here - because, seeing as the inside of the barrel is
Tahor, and its Tevilah only a Chumra, it will suffice for the water of the
Mikveh to be more than the Mei Chatas (like Miyn be'Miyno) ...
(c) ... which they necessitated because they were afraid that, otherwise,
the owner, out of concern for his Mei Chatas, may avoid Toveling the inside
of the barrel, and in the process, fail to Tovel its top edge as well.