Our Rabbis taught: As to the shard of a Zab and a Zabah, the first and second time it is unclean, the third time it is clean. When is that? if one poured water into it; but if one did not pour water into it, it is unclean even the tenth time. R. Eliezer b. Jacob said: At the third time it is clean even if one did not pour water into it. (1) Now, whom do you know to maintain that one kind is not nullified by its own kind? R. Judah. (2) But the following contradicts it: If flax was spun by a niddah, (3) he who moves it is clean; but if it is damp, he who moves it is unclean, on account of the fluid of her mouth. (4) R. Judah said: One also who moistens it in water is unclean, on account of the fluid of her mouth, (5) even [if he washes it] many times! (6) — Said R. Papa: Saliva is different, because it is incrusted. (7) IF IT WAS MIXED WITH THE BLOOD OF UNFIT [ANIMALS], IT MUST BE POURED OUT INTO THE DUCT [etc.] Wherein do they differ? — Said R. Zebid: They differ as to whether a preventive measure is enacted in the Temple: one master holds that we enact a preventive measure, while the other master holds that we do not enact a preventive measure. (8) R. Papa said: All agree that we do enact a preventive measure, but here they disagree as to whether it is usual for the draining blood to exceed the life blood: one master holds that it is common, while the other master holds that it is not common. (9) As for R. Papa, it is well: for that reason he teaches, IF IT WAS MIXED WITH THE BLOOD OF UNFIT [ANIMALS]. IT MUST BE POURED OUT INTO THE DUCT; WITH THE DRAINING BLOOD, IT MUST BE POURED OUT INTO THE DUCT. (10) But according to R. Zebid, let him [the Tanna] combine them and teach them together? (11) — That indeed is a difficulty. MISHNAH. [IF] BLOOD OF WHOLE [UNBLEMISHED] ANIMALS [WAS MIXED] WITH BLOOD OF BLEMISHED ANIMALS, IT MUST BE POURED OUT INTO THE DUCT. [IF] A GOBLET [WAS MIXED UP] WITH OTHER GOBLETS, (12) R. ELIEZER SAID: IF HE [THE PRIEST] OFFERED [SPRINKLED] ONE GOBLET, ALL THE GOBLETS ARE OFFERED; (13) BUT THE SAGES MAINTAIN: EVEN IF THEY OFFERED ALL OF THEM SAVE ONE, IT MUST BE POURED OUT INTO THE DUCT. IF [BLOOD] THAT IS SPRINKLED BELOW WAS MIXED WITH BLOOD THAT IS SPRINKLED ABOVE, R. ELIEZER SAID: HE MUST SPRINKLE [IT] ABOVE, AND I REGARD THE LOWER [BLOOD] ABOVE (14) AS THOUGH IT WERE WATER, AND THEN HE SPRINKLES AGAIN BELOW. BUT THE SAGES MAINTAIN: IT MUST BE POURED OUT INTO THE DUCT. (15) YET IF [THE PRIEST] DID NOT ASK BUT SPRINKLED [IT]. IT IS FIT.

---

(1). ↑ The reference is to an earthen bed-chamber used by a Zab or Zabah, which was broken. The shard thereof, having absorbed their urine, contaminates through carriage, i.e., it defiles anyone who carries it even without actually touching it. Now, if one washed it (the pot) once or twice, it still remains unclean, because that does not suffice to expel the urine; but when one washes it a third time, the urine is held to have been washed out, and so it is clean. That however is only when the pot was washed by pouring water into it each time; if, however, not water but the urine of a clean person (which is ritually clean) was poured into it, this does not render it clean, because they are both of the same kind, viz., urine, and one kind cannot nullify the same kind. R. Eliezer b. Jacob holds that it does nullify, and therefore if it was washed three times, even by pouring the urine of a clean person into it, it is clean.
(2). ↑ Hence he must be the author of the first ruling in opposition to R. Eliezer b. Jacob.
(3). ↑ V. Glos.
(4). ↑ When flax is spun it is moistened with the moisture or saliva of one's mouth. Now, the saliva of a niddah defiles any person who moves it, e.g., when it is on an article, even if he does not touch it; but only as long as it is moist. This explains the passage.
(5). ↑ As this re-moistens the saliva.
(6). ↑ For the water does not wash it out. This contradicts his statement supra that three washings suffice.
(7). ↑ It becomes hardened in the flax and is difficult to remove.
(8). ↑ The first Tanna holds that a preventive measure is enacted in the loss of sacred flesh. Therefore, when the blood of a fit sacrifice is mixed with that of an unfit sacrifice or with the draining blood, although the latter may be insufficient to nullify the former, it must be poured out (and hence the sacrifice to which it belonged is declared unfit), as a preventive measure, lest one declare it fit even where the latter is sufficient to nullify the former. (Nevertheless, a preventive measure is not enacted where it is mixed with the blood of an animal or beast that is hullin, because hullin in the Temple court is rare.) R. Eliezer holds that we do not enact a preventive measure, for such would cause the unnecessary loss of sacred flesh. Therefore the mixture is fit for sprinkling unless the unfit blood is so much that if it were water, the fit blood would lose its appearance of blood.
(9). ↑ When it is mixed with the blood of an unfit animal (which may happen quite frequently), all, even R. Eliezer, agree that we enact a preventive measure, and the rule of the first part of the Mishnah applies. They disagree only where it is mixed with the draining blood: here R. Eliezer holds that a preventive measure is not enacted, since it is rare for the draining blood to exceed the life blood.
(10). ↑ These are taught as separate clauses because R. Eliezer agrees with one and disagrees with the other.
(11). ↑ As one clause: if it was mixed up with the blood of unfit animals or with the draining blood, it must, etc. Only one clause is necessary, since R. Eliezer disagrees with both.
(12). ↑ The former containing blood of blemished animals, the latter blood of whole animals.
(13). ↑ We assume that the first offered was that of the blemished animal, so that the rest are fit.
(14). ↑ I.e., the blood which should be sprinkled below but was sprinkled above.
(15). ↑ They reject the view that we can regard the lower blood as water, and hold that you cannot deviate in the rites of same (by sprinkling it above) in order to sprinkle the upper blood.