R. JUDAH SAID: BLOOD CANNOT NULLIFY BLOOD. (1) IF IT WAS MIXED WITH THE BLOOD OF UNFIT [ANIMALS], (2) IT MUST BE POURED OUT INTO THE DUCT. (3) [IF IT WAS MIXED] WITH THE DRAINING BLOOD, (4) IT MUST BE POURED OUT INTO THE DUCT; R. ELIEZER DECLARED IT FIT. IF HE [THE PRIEST] DID NOT ASK BUT SPRINKLED IT, IT IS VALID. (5) GEMARA. R. Hiyya b. Abba said in R. Johanan's name: We learnt this (6) only if the water fell into the blood; but if the blood fell into the water, each drop is nullified as it falls. (7) R. Papa observed: [But] it is not so in respect to covering, because there is no rejection in precepts. (8) Resh Lakish said: If Piggul, nothar and unclean [flesh] were mixed up together, and one ate them, he is not culpable, [for] it is impossible that one kind should not exceed the other and nullify it. (9) You may infer three things from this. You may infer [i]: Interdicts nullify each other. And you may infer [ii]: [The interdict of] taste in a greater quantity is not Scriptural. (10) And you may infer [iii]: A doubtful warning is not called a warning. Raba raised an objection: If one made a dough of wheat and rice, if it tastes of corn, it is subject to hallah. (11) Now that is so even if the greater part is rice? (12) — [That is] by Rabbinical law [only]. If so, consider the sequel: A man can fulfill his duty thereby on Passover? (13)

---

(1). ↑ Even if the added blood would cause the original blood to lose its appearance if the former were water, the mixture is still fit for sprinkling.
(2). ↑ E.g., with the blood of a roba’ or a nirba’ (v. supra 71a), or the blood of a sacrifice offered with the intention of eating the flesh after time or out of bounds.
(3). ↑ The duct or sewer in the Temple court which carried off the blood.
(4). ↑ V. p. 173, n. 6.
(5). ↑ Even according to the first Tanna.
(6). ↑ That if it retains the appearance of blood it is fit, which implies even where there is more water than blood.
(7). ↑ Lit., ‘the first is nullified’. As each drop of blood falls into the water it is instantaneously nullified, so that even if eventually the mixture looks like blood, it is unfit for sprinkling.
(8). ↑ When one slaughters a bird or a beast of chase, he must cover its blood (Lev. XVII, 13). Now, even if this blood fell into water, if the whole looks like blood he must cover it, and we do not say that each consecutive drop was nullified. For though the first drop was indeed nullified, yet when so much has fallen in as to make the whole look like blood it regains its identity and combines with the rest, because where precepts are concerned a thing cannot be permanently rejected and made to lose its identity.
(9). ↑ Rashi: if one mixed as much as an olive of two of these (both from Rashi and Tosaf., it appears that ‘and unclean flesh’ should be deleted), as one chews them together there must be in each piece that he chews rather more of the one kind and less of the other. This lesser part is nullified in the greater and is technically added thereto, whilst the kind which it is, is naturally diminished thereby. This will happen with each piece that he chews, and as it is impossible to equalize them, one of the kinds has less than the standard (as much as an olive is the minimum to involve liability). Now, liability in general is not incurred unless a formal warning, called hathra'ah, is first given to the offender; this warning must be couched in precise terms, e.g., ‘We warn you that for eating so-and-so you will incur such and such penalty.’ In this instance such a precise warning is impossible, for if it is given on account of Piggul, perhaps liability may be incurred on account of nothar, Piggul being short of the standard. Hence only a doubtful warning can be given, and such is not accounted a warning. Tosaf. explains differently.
(10). ↑ If forbidden food is mixed even with a greater quantity of permitted food and communicates its taste to it, the whole is forbidden, (even if the former is subsequently removed). From Resh Lakish we learn that this interdict is not Scriptural and therefore does not involve flagellation. For if it were Scriptural, then even when one kind exceeds the other, yet since each imparts its taste to the other, there is the forbidden taste in the full standard, and the offender would be culpable.
(11). ↑ V. Glos. and Num. XV, 20. Only a dough of corn (which includes wheat but not rice) is subject to hallah.
(12). ↑ Hence the status conferred by taste is Scriptural, since hallah is a Scriptural law.
(13). ↑ As much as an olive of unleavened bread must be eaten on the first evening of Passover. This must be made of one of the five species of grain (wheat, barley, rye, oats and spelt), but not of rice, But if this dough counts as a wheat dough only by Rabbinical law, how can one fulfill his Scriptural obligation with it?