Nullification, Revival, and the Sanctity of Teruma

How Tosafot distinguishes ritual impurity from forbidden foods, defines the revival of nullified prohibitions, and preserves the physical sanctity of teruma.

Brine and Impure Water

Reish Lakish rules that fish brine bought from an עַם הָאָרֶץ (one who is unreliable regarding ritual impurity) can be purified by bringing it into contact with a mikveh. If the mixture is mostly water, this contact purifies the water, which in turn nullifies the brine. If it is mostly brine, the brine itself is not susceptible to impurity, and the minority of impure water is nullified by a simple majority of brine.

Tosafot is troubled by this straightforward nullification. In general prohibitions of the Torah, a mixture requires sixty parts of permitted substance to eliminate taste, because טַעַם כְּעִיקָר (taste is treated like the substance itself). Why does the Gemara rule that a simple majority suffices here without evaluating imparted flavor?

Impurity Lacks the Rule of Flavor

Tosafot answers that the principle of טַעַם כְּעִיקָר was taught only regarding dietary prohibitions, not regarding ritual impurity. Since imparting flavor does not transfer impurity, a simple majority of permitted or non-susceptible substance is enough to cancel the impurity.

To prove this rule, Tosafot notes that a נְבֵלָה (unslaughtered carcass) mixed into slaughtered meat loses its ritual defilement by majority. Even if the two are cooked together in a single pot and flavor is transferred throughout, the meat remains ritually pure.

הנך מיעוטא דמיא בטילן להו ברובא - ולא דמי לשאר איסורין שהוא בנותן טעם דלא אתמר טעם כעיקר לענין טומאה

That minority of water is nullified in the majority — And this is not similar to other prohibitions, where it depends on imparting flavor, for 'taste is like the substance itself' was not said with regard to ritual impurity. (Tosafot on Bekhorot 22a:10:1)

Does Nullified Substance Revive?

Rabbi Yirmeya limits the brine's purification: it is permitted only for dipping bread, but cannot be added to a pot containing water. The water inside the brine would find its own kind in the pot, join together with it, and awaken the dormant impurity. Rav Dimi supports this view that nullified defilement revives upon joining a majority of its kind.

Tosafot quotes Rav Ephraim, who objects from Avodah Zarah 73a. There, Rav Dimi states that libation wine poured drop by drop into a pit of kosher wine is nullified continuously without the prohibition reviving upon accumulation. How can Rav Dimi hold that impure water revives in a pot, while libation wine does not revive in a cistern?

The Sixty-Part Limit of Nullification

The Ri explains that both prohibitions and impurities do revive once the forbidden substance outnumbers the permitted. The rule of drop-by-drop nullification in Avodah Zarah never meant that forbidden wine could accumulate indefinitely to become a majority. Rather, it operates only up to a ratio of sixty of permitted substance.

Beyond that ratio, even libation wine reasserts its prohibition and imparts forbidden flavor. The special rule of drop-by-drop nullification merely permitted the wine from the outset where an ordinary stream would have created an immediate prohibition. Thus, the principle of revival remains consistent across both areas of halacha.

וההיא דר' יוחנן דע"ז (דף עג.) דקאמר ראשון ראשון בטל היינו כל זמן שיש בהיתר ששים על האיסור

And that statement of Rabbi Yochanan in Avodah Zarah (73a), where he said that it is nullified first by first, that is only as long as there is sixty of permitted substance against the prohibited substance. (Tosafot on Bekhorot 22a:11:3)

Nullified Teruma and Priest's Rights

The Gemara cites a Mishnah concerning a סְאָה (measure of volume) of impure תְּרוּמָה (priestly gift) that fell into one hundred of pure חוּלִין (non-sacred produce). The Rabbis rule: תַּעֲלֶה (let it arise and be nullified). Rashi notes that although the mixture is nullified, one must separate a se'ah for a kohen or pay its value to prevent monetary loss.

From this, one might infer that a owner could discharge the obligation with money alone rather than separating physical produce. Tosafot agrees that the enactment originated to avoid גְּזֵל הַשֵּׁבֶט (robbing the priestly tribe). However, Tosafot insists that actual produce must be lifted, because the physical sanctity of תְּרוּמָה remains attached to the mixture.

Ritual impurity requires only a simple majority to be nullified because flavor does not transfer defilement, but nullified elements revive when outnumbering the permitted, and nullified teruma retains genuine physical sanctity.

Learn Bekhorot 22 on Super Daf