POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Zevachim 79
ZEVACHIM 79 (29 Av) - "Mechabdo b'Chayav, Mechabdo b'Moso" (see Kidushin
31b). This Daf has been dedicated by the Trebitsch family l'Iluy Nishmas
Eliezer Shmuel Binyomin ben Mayer Trebitsch, in honor of his Yahrzeit.
1) EXPLAINING THE OPINION OF REBBI YEHUDAH
(a) Answer #1 (Abaye): R. Yehudah himself considers Mino like
Eino Mino - in our Mishnah he teaches according to his
Rebbi, who says that Min b'Mino is never Batul (Rashi -
also the Beraisa is like his Rebbi, who is likewise
stringent about Min b'Eino Mino of a similar appearance,
to consider it to have a different appearance.)
2) WHEN DOES "BITUL" APPLY?
1. (Beraisa - R. Yehudah citing R. Gamliel): Blood does
not Mevatel blood, spit does not Mevatel spit, urine
does not Mevatel urine.
(b) Answer #2 (Rava): Really, he holds like his Rebbi;
1. The (Tosfos - case of Mei Chatas in the) Mishnah
discusses a bucket which is Tahor on the inside and
Tamei on the outside (i.e. through Tum'ah
mid'Rabanan of liquids);
2. Letter of the law, it should suffice if the outside
and the brim are totally in contact with the water
(it could be removed from the Mikvah before the
inside fills up with water) - Chachamim decreed that
the inside must also be immersed, lest one remove it
(hastily, lest the water mix with and Posel the Mei
Chatas) before the outside and brim were properly
3. When the majority is Mei Chatas, he is not hasty to
remove it, for even if it fills up the Mei Chatas
will not become Pasul.
(a) (Rava): Chachamim taught that sometimes Bitul depends on
the majority, sometimes on whether or not the minority
can be tasted, sometimes on whether or not it affects the
1. Min b'Mino is Batul in a majority;
(b) R. Elazar argues with Reish Lakish (78A).
2. Min b'Eino Mino is Batul if the minority cannot be
3. Something in which the taste is irrelevant but
depends on the appearance (e.g. liquids poured into
a Mikvah) is Batul if it does not affect the
(R. Elazar): Just as Mitzvos do not nullify each
other, Isurim do not nullify each other.
(c) We learn from Hillel that Mitzvos do not nullify each
1. (Beraisa): Hillel used to eat Korban Pesach, Matzah
and bitter herbs combined together - "Al Matzos
u'Morerim Yochluhu" (all are Mitzvos, none is
Mevatel another even if it is the majority or its
taste is overpowering).
(d) (Beraisa): If earthenware shards of a urinal used by a
Zav or Zavah were rinsed once or twice, they are still
3) "DAM KODSHIM" THAT BECAME MIXED WITH OTHER BLOOD
1. If they were rinsed three times, they are Tehorim.
(e) This is when they were rinsed with water - if they were
not rinsed (but rather, the urinal was used by Tehorim
after Teme'im used it), even after 10 times, they are
Teme'im. (The Tamei urine is never Batul b'Mino.)
(f) R. Eliezer ben Yakov says, after three times, even
without water, they are Tehorim.
1. The first Tana is like R. Yehudah, who says that Min
b'Mino is never Batul.
(g) Contradiction (Beraisa): If a Nidah spun flax (and it is
dry), one who moves it is Tahor;
1. If it is still moist (from her saliva), one who
moves it becomes Tamei;
(h) Answer (Rav Papa): Saliva is different than urine, it
penetrates deeply into flax and never fully leaves it.
2. R. Yehudah says, even if it was dry and one wet it,
one who moves it becomes Tamei on account of her
3. Summation of contradiction: This applies even if it
was washed many times (the saliva is never Batul)!
(a) (Mishnah): If it became mixed with blood of Pasul
Korbanos, it is poured into the Amah. (The same applies
if it was mixed with Dam Tamtzis; R. Eliezer allows doing
(b) Question: What do they argue about?
(c) Answer #1 (Rav Zevid): They argue whether or not
Chachamim make decrees in the Mikdash (to distance people
from transgressing) if this will cause Kodshim to be
1. The first Tana decrees (lest someone will Zorek
blood which is mostly or entirely Pasul), R. Eliezer
does not decree.
(d) Answer #2 (Rav Papa): (All agree that Chachamim make such
decrees, e.g. regarding blood of Pesulim;) they argue
whether or not it is common that there is more Tamtzis
blood than Dam ha'Nefesh:
1. The first Tana holds that this is common, therefore
he decrees; R. Eliezer holds that this is uncommon,
he does not decree.
(e) Question: We understand according to Rav Papa why (a
mixture with) Dam Tamtzis was taught in a separate clause
from Dam Pesulim, for R. Eliezer only argues about the
1. But according to Rav Zevid, R. Eliezer argues about
both - the Mishnah should have taught them together!
(f) This is left difficult.
(g) (Mishnah): If Dam of Kosher Zevachim was mixed with blood
of Ba'alei Mumim, it is poured to the Amah;
(h) R. Eliezer says, if a cup of blood of a Ba'al Mum was
mixed with cups of proper Dam Zevachim, and one of the
cups was Nizrak, we Zorek all of them;
(i) Chachamim say, even if all of them except for one were
offered, the remaining one is poured to the Amah.
(j) R. Eliezer says, if lower blood (i.e. that should be
Nizrak below) was mixed with upper blood (i.e. of Chatas,
that should be Nizrak above):
1. We Zorek some above, and consider the lower blood to
be like water; we then Zorek some below, and
consider the upper blood to be like water;
(k) Chachamim say, all of it is poured to the Amah;
1. If the Kohen did not ask the Halachah but did
Zerikah, it is Kosher.