(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


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 Malkos).

(a) Rice, which is not one of the five species of grain - is not subject to Chalah.

(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 - mi'de'Rabbanan.

(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 'Ro'in').

(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.
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.
(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 Mei Chatas.

(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 Raglayim'.

(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.
2. ... Rok and Mei Raglayim is - with regard to the spit of a Zav.
(c) Rebbi Yehudah quotes this ruling - in the name of his Rebbe, Raban Gamliel.

(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.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,