ZEVACHIM 78 (17 Tamuz) - Dedicated in honor of the birthday of Mairav Linzer.
1)
(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 does he mean?
(b)Why is that?
(c)Rav Papa adds that this is not the case regarding Kisuy ha'Dam. What does he mean?
(d)Why is that?
1)
(a)Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan restricts the opening ruling in our Mishnah to where the water falls into the blood, but not vice-versa - If the blood falls 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, will still be subject to the Mitzvah of Kisuy ha'Dam ...
(d)... due to the principle Ein Dichuy be'Mitzvos. In other words, we apply the principle Chozer ve'Ni'ur to Mitzvos, but not to Kedushah).
2)
(a)What does Resh Lakish say about someone who mixes a k'Zayis of Pigul with a k'Zayis of Nosar and a k'Zayis of Tamei and eats them together?
(b)Why is that?
(c)Besides the Chidush of Hasra'as Safek, we learn from here that Isurin are Mevatel one another. What might we otherwise have thought?
(d)What third thing do we learn from here with regard to Nosen Ta'am?
(e)How do we know that?
2)
(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 ...
(b)... 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. 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 is that - when a minority of Isur gives taste to a majority of Heter (Nosen Ta'am be'Rov) it is only Asur mi'de'Rabbanan ...
(e)... because otherwise - he ought to receive Malkos on account of the taste.
3)
(a)Why is rice subject to Chalah?
(b)What does the Beraisa say about a dough that is made of wheat and rice with regard to Chalah, even assuming that the latter is in the majority?
(c)If Nosen Ta'am is only mi'de'Rabbanan, on what basis will such a dough be Chayav Chalah?
3)
(a)Rice is not subject to Chalah - because it is not one of the five species of grain.
(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 - only mi'de'Rabbanan.
4)
(a)What does the Seifa of the Beraisa add that refutes our previous answer?
(b)We therefore conclude Ela Miyn be'she'Eino Miyno be'Ta'ama. How do we then establish the case of Resh Lakish to explain why there we go after the Rov?
4)
(a)The Seifa of the Beraisa adds that - one is Yotzei with such a dough one's obligation of Matzah on Pesach (refuting the current theory that Nosen Ta'am is only 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 there, we go after the Rov, and not after the taste.
78b----------------------------------------78b
5)
(a)Having just concluded Miyn be'she'Eino Miyno be'Ta'ama, Miyn be'Miyno be'Ruba, on what grounds do we query the second half of the statement? How do we think we ought to apply Ro'in there?
(b)And we base this Kashya on the opening case of Ro'in in our Mishnah. How do we initially interpret Nis'arev be'Yayin, Ro'in oso keI'lu hu Mayim? What exactly, are we referring to?
(c)What does this prove?
(d)We try to answer that Ro'in refers to the blood (and not to the wine). How will that dispense with the Kashya? What is the Tana then coming to teach us?
5)
(a)Having just concluded Miyn be'she'Eino Miyno 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 - 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'arev be'Yayin, Ro'in oso keI'lu hu Mayim to mean that - we consider the wine as if it was water, to permit it 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 that case, Ro'in enhances the Rov (rather than negates it).
6)
(a)We query this latter explanation however, from the Lashon of the Beraisa. If Ro'in refers to the blood, what ought the Tana to have said?
(b)We also query it from Rebbi Yehudah. What does Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa, say about Toveling a bucket containing white wine or milk? Under which circumstances does he permit it, based on Ro'in?
(c)What does this prove?
(d)How do we then answer the basic Kashya, based on that very same Beraisa? According to which Tana then, do we rule 'Miyn be'Miyno be'Rubo' (ignoring the principle of 'Ro'in')?
6)
(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 query it from Rebbi Yehudah, who rules in a Beraisa that if a bucket contains white wine or milk - one may Tovel it, provided that, if it would be red wine, the water of the Mikveh that fills the bucket will negate its red appearance ...
(c)... a proof that Ro'in gives Miyn be'Miyno the Din of Miyn be'she'Eino Miyno (even to negate 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).
7)
(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. What is the reason for ...
1. ... the first ruling? What is the significance of the bucket full of spit?
2. ... the second ruling? What would the Halachah otherwise be?
(b)What does the Tana rule in a similar case where the bucket is full of Mei Chatas?
(c)Seeing as Mei Chatas is also a kind of water, why is the Tana more stringent in this case than in the previous one?
7)
(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)In a similar case where the bucket is full of Mei Chatas - the Tana rules that the Tevilah is valid, provided the Mikvah 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 prevents Bitul).
8)
(a)Why do we establish the author of the Beraisa as Rebbi Yehudah?
(b)What problem do we then have with the Seifa?
8)
(a)We establish the author of the Beraisa as Rebbi Yehudah - because in the case of urine, it applies the principle of Ro'in (and, as we just learned, 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 taste [or appearance], like Miyn be'she'Eino Miyno [and not just Rov]).
9)
(a)Abaye answers with another Beraisa. What does Rebbi Yehudah say there about Dam Mevatel Dam, Rok Mevatel Rok and Mei Raglayim Mevatlin Mei Raglayim? What common ruling pertains to all three?
(b)What is the significance of the second ...
1. ... Dam? What is it being used for?
2. ... Rok and Mei Raglayim?
(c)In whose name does Rebbi Yehudah quote this ruling?
(d)How does Abaye use this to answer the Kashya? What does he learn from there with regard to Ro'in?
9)
(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 (which is Metamei).
(c)Rebbi Yehudah quotes this ruling - in the name of his Rebbe, Rabban 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 Rabban 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.
10)
(a)Rava disagrees with Abaye. According to him, Rebbi Yehudah agrees with Rabban Gamliel, and he establishes the Beraisa by a bucket that is Tamei on the outside, but Tahor on the inside. How is this possible?
(b)How will that answer the Kashya. If Rebbi Yehudah generally holds Ro'in, why will he not apply it in this case?
(c)If the Tevilah of the inside of the barrel is a mere Chumra, then why did the Rabbanan even necessitate a Rov?
10)
(a)Rava disagrees with Abaye. According to him, Rebbi Yehudah agrees with Rabban Gamliel, and he establishes the Beraisa by a bucket that is Tamei on the outside, but Tahor on the inside - with reference to Tum'as Mashkin mi'de'Rabbanan.
(b)Consequently, even though Rebbi Yehudah generally holds Ro'in, he will not apply it here - because, seeing as the inside of the barrel is Tahor, and its Tevilah is only a Chumra, it will suffice for the water of the Mikvah to exceed 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.
