Study Zevachim folio 79A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
this statement, that the water of purification is nullified in a majority of water, is his, i.e., R' Yehuda’s, own opinion, whereas that statement, in the baraita, that white wine is not nullified in a majority of water, is his teacher’s ruling, i.e., that of Rabban Gamliel, who is stringent with r
Rava says there is a different resolution of the apparent contradiction between the Mishnah that states that water of purification is nullified in a majority of water of a mikveh and R' Yehuda’s opinion in the baraita with regard to white wine mixed with water: In the Mishnah, we are dealing with a
Rava continues: And it is the rabbis who decreed with regard to this case that the internal surface must be purified as well, lest the owner wish to spare the water of purification and not to nullify it from its sanctity. In that case he would wish to avoid allowing water from the mikveh to enter th
§ Rava says, in summary of these halakhot: The rabbis said that the status of an item in a mixture is determined by the taste, i.e., if the taste of one substance is noticeable in a mixture with another substance it is not nullified, and the rabbis said that a prohibited item is nullified by the m
§ The Talmud returns to its discussion of the opinion of Reish Lakish that prohibited items, such as piggul, notar, and ritually impure meat, nullify one another. The Talmud notes: And Reish Lakish disagrees with the statement of R' Elazar, as R' Elazar says: Just as items used in the performance of