Avodah Zarah 73

איכא דאמרי רבה בר רב הונא גופיה אישתי בקנישקנין

There are those who say that Rabba bar Rav Huna himself drank from a kenishkanin.

מתני׳ יין נסך אסור ואוסר בכל שהוא יין ביין ומים במים בכל שהוא יין במים ומים ביין בנותן טעם

MISHNA: Wine used for a libation is forbidden, and any amount of it renders other wine forbidden if they are mixed together. Wine used for a libation that became mixed with wine, or water that was used for an idolatrous libation that became mixed with ordinary water, renders the mixture forbidden with any amount of the forbidden wine or water; but wine used for a libation that became mixed with water, or water used for a libation that became mixed with wine renders the mixture forbidden only if the forbidden liquid is sufficient to impart flavor to the mixture, i.e., for the wine to flavor the water or for the water to dilute the wine to an extent that can be tasted.

זה הכלל מין במינו במשהו ושלא במינו בנותן טעם

This is the principle: A substance in contact with the same type of substance renders the mixture forbidden with any amount of the forbidden substance, but a substance in contact with a different type of substance renders the mixture forbidden only in a case where it imparts flavor to it.

גמ׳ כי אתא רב דימי אמר רבי יוחנן המערה יין נסך מחבית לבור אפילו כל היום כולו ראשון ראשון בטל

GEMARA: When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he reported that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: In the case of one who pours wine used for a libation from a barrel into a wine cistern, even if he does this all day long, the forbidden wine is nullified little by little upon contact with the wine in the cistern, and the wine is consequently permitted.

תנן יין נסך אסור ואוסר בכל שהוא מאי לאו דקא נפיל איסורא לגו התירא לא דקא נפיל התירא לגו איסורא

The Gemara raises an objection to the halakha reported by Rav Dimi from that which we learned in the mishna: Wine used for a libation is forbidden, and any amount of it renders other wine forbidden. What, is it not referring to a case where the forbidden substance fell into the permitted substance, as in the case of Rav Dimi’s statement? The Gemara rejects this: No, it is referring to a case where the permitted substance fell into the forbidden substance.

תא שמע יין במים בנותן טעם מאי לאו דקא נפיל חמרא דאיסורא למיא דהתירא לא דקא נפיל חמרא דהתירא למיא דאיסורא

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a further objection to the halakha reported by Rav Dimi from the continuation of the mishna: Wine that became mixed with water renders the mixture forbidden if it is sufficient to impart flavor to it. What, is it not referring to a case where forbidden wine fell into permitted water, and contrary to Rav Dimi’s statement, the wine is not nullified but instead renders the mixture forbidden the moment there is a sufficient amount of it to impart flavor? The Gemara answers: No, it is referring to a case where permitted wine fell into forbidden water, and as long as the water influences the flavor of the wine, it is forbidden.

ומדרישא במיא דאיסורא סיפא נמי במיא דאיסורא וקתני סיפא מים ביין בנותן טעם אמר לך רב דימי כולה מתניתין התירא לגו איסורא ורישא דקא נפיל חמרא דהתירא למיא דאיסורא סיפא דקא נפיל מיא דהתירא לחמרא דאיסורא

The Gemara challenges: And from the fact that the first clause is referring to forbidden water, by inference, the latter clause also dealing with forbidden water, and the latter clause teaches: Water that became mixed with wine renders the mixture forbidden in a case where it imparts flavor to it. The Gemara answers that Rav Dimi could have said to you that the entire mishna is dealing with permitted substances falling into forbidden substances, and the first clause is dealing with a case where permitted wine fell into forbidden water, while the latter clause is dealing with a case where permitted water fell into forbidden wine.

כי אתא רב יצחק בר יוסף אמר רבי יוחנן המערה יין נסך מצרצור קטן לבור אפילו כל היום כולו ראשון ראשון בטל ודוקא צרצור קטן דלא נפיש עמודיה אבל חבית דנפיש עמודיה לא

When Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he reported that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: In the case of one who pours wine used for a libation from a small canteen into a wine cistern, even if he did so all day long, the forbidden wine is nullified little by little in the permitted wine. And this applies specifically to a small canteen, whose stream is not significant. But if one pours wine from a barrel, whose stream is significant, this does not apply.

כי אתא רבין אמר רבי יוחנן יין נסך שנפל לבור ונפל שם קיתון של מים רואין את ההיתר כאילו אינו והשאר מים רבין עליו ומבטלין אותו

§ When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: In the case of wine used for a libation that fell into a wine cistern, and where a pitcher of water also fell there, one considers the permitted wine as though it is nonexistent, and it is not rendered forbidden by the wine used for a libation; and with regard to the rest, i.e., the wine used for a libation, the volume of the water is greater than the volume of the wine and nullifies it.

כי אתא רב שמואל בר יהודה אמר רבי יוחנן לא שנו אלא שנפל קיתון של מים תחלה אבל לא נפל שם קיתון של מים תחלה מצא מין את מינו וניעור

When Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda came from Eretz Yisrael he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The Sages taught this only with regard to a case where the pitcher of water fell in first, but if the pitcher of water did not fall in first, the wine used for a libation has found its own type, i.e., the wine in the cistern, and been awakened. In other words, the wine used for a libation renders the wine in the cistern forbidden, causing the volume of the wine that is forbidden to become larger, and the water that subsequently falls in is not sufficient to nullify all of the wine.

איכא דמתני לה אמתניתין יין ביין כל שהוא אמר רב שמואל בר יהודה אמר רבי יוחנן לא שנו אלא שלא נפל שם קיתון של מים אבל נפל שם קיתון של מים רואין את ההיתר כאילו אינו והשאר מים רבין עליו ומבטלין אותו

The Gemara comments: There are those who teach this halakha with regard to the mishna, which states that wine used for a libation that became mixed with permitted wine renders it forbidden with any amount. Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The mishna taught this only with regard to a case where a pitcher of water did not also fall into the permitted wine; but if a pitcher of water fell there, one considers the permitted wine as though it is nonexistent, and it is not rendered forbidden by the wine used for a libation, and with regard to the rest, i.e., the wine used for a libation, the volume of the water is greater than the volume of the wine and nullifies it.

מאי איכא בין לדמתני לה אמתניתין בין לדמתני לה אדרבין מאן דמתני לה אמתניתין לא בעי תחלה ומאן דמתני לה אדרבין בעי תחלה

The Gemara asks: What difference is there between the one who teaches this about the mishna and the one who teaches it about the statement of Ravin? The Gemara explains: The one who teaches it about the mishna does not need for the pitcher of water to have fallen in first; in any event the water nullifies the forbidden wine. But the one who teaches it about the statement of Ravin adds to Ravin’s statement, and so he needs the pitcher of water to have fallen in first.

איתמר יין נסך שנפל לבור ונפל שם קיתון של מים

§ It was stated that in a case of wine used for a libation that fell into a wine cistern, and where a pitcher of water also fell there,

אמר חזקיה הגדילו באיסור אסור הגדילו בהיתר מותר

Ḥizkiyya says: If the volume of the water and the wine was increased by the forbidden wine, i.e., the forbidden wine fell in last, the mixture is forbidden, because the forbidden wine renders the permitted wine forbidden by the principle of a substance in contact with the same type of substance, and the water does not nullify the forbidden wine. But if the volume of the water and the forbidden wine was increased by the permitted wine, i.e., there was a mixture of wine used for a libation and water, and the wine used for a libation was nullified by the water and then permitted wine fell into the mixture, in such a case the permitted wine is not rendered forbidden by the forbidden wine that had already been nullified, and so the entire mixture is permitted.

ורבי יוחנן אמר אפילו הגדילו באיסור מותר

And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Even if the volume of the permitted wine and the water was increased by the forbidden wine, the mixture is permitted.

אמר ליה רבי ירמיה לרבי זירא לימא חזקיה ורבי יוחנן בפלוגתא דרבי אליעזר ורבנן קמיפלגי

Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zeira: Shall we say that Ḥizkiyya and Rabbi Yoḥanan disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis?

דתנן שאור של חולין ושל תרומה שנפלו לתוך העיסה לא בזה כדי לחמץ ולא בזה כדי לחמץ ונצטרפו וחמצו

As we learned in a mishna (Orla 2:11): In the case of non-sacred leaven and teruma leaven that fell into a non-sacred batch of dough, and neither is this one alone potent enough to cause the dough to become leavened, nor is that one alone potent enough to cause the dough to become leavened, and they combined and caused the dough to become leavened, there is a dispute as to whether this dough has the status of teruma, and is therefore forbidden to non-priests, or non-sacred bread.

רבי אליעזר אומר אחר אחרון אני בא וחכמים אומרים בין שנפל איסור בתחלה ובין בסוף אינו אסור עד שיהא בו כדי להחמיץ

Rabbi Eliezer says: I follow the final element that fell into the dough. If the teruma fell in last, the dough is forbidden to non-priests. And the Rabbis say: Whether the forbidden item, i.e., the teruma, fell in first or whether it fell in last, the dough is not forbidden unless there is enough of the forbidden leaven alone to cause the dough to become leavened. Apparently, Ḥizkiyya holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer that if the forbidden substance is mixed in last, the mixture is rendered forbidden, and Rabbi Yoḥanan holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis that if the amount of the forbidden substance is not sufficient in and of itself to render the mixture forbidden, the mixture is permitted.

ותסברא והאמר אביי לא שנו אלא שקדם וסילק את האיסור אבל לא קדם וסילק את האיסור אסור חזקיה דאמר כמאן

The Gemara responds: And how can you understand that this is the same dispute? But doesn’t Abaye say: Rabbi Eliezer taught that the mixture is permitted when the permitted leaven fell in last only in a case when one first removed the forbidden leaven before the permitted leaven fell into the dough and made it rise. But if one did not first remove the forbidden leaven, the dough is forbidden even if the permitted leaven fell in last. According to Abaye’s interpretation, in accordance with whose opinion does Ḥizkiyya state his ruling with regard to a mixture of forbidden wine, permitted wine, and permitted water, that if the forbidden wine was mixed in last the mixture is forbidden? According to the Rabbis the mixture should be permitted in any event, as there is not enough forbidden wine to render the mixture forbidden, and according to Rabbi Eliezer, even if the permitted wine was mixed in last the mixture should be forbidden, as the forbidden wine was not removed.

אלא הכא ברואין קמיפלגי לחזקיה לית ליה רואין לרבי יוחנן אית ליה

Rather, here Ḥizkiyya and Rabbi Yoḥanan disagree concerning the principle that with regard to a mixture of a forbidden substance and a permitted substance of the same type, and a permitted substance of a different type, one considers the permitted substance of the same type as though it were nonexistent so that the substance of the other type can nullify the forbidden substance. Ḥizkiyya is not of the opinion that one considers it as though it were nonexistent, whereas Rabbi Yoḥanan is of the opinion that one considers it as though it were nonexistent, and so he maintains that in any event the water nullifies the forbidden wine, and the permitted wine in the mixture is disregarded.

ומי אית ליה לרבי יוחנן רואין והא בעי מיניה רבי אסי מרבי יוחנן שני כוסות אחד של חולין ואחד של תרומה ומזגן ועירבן זה בזה מהו ולא פשט ליה

The Gemara asks: And is Rabbi Yoḥanan of the opinion that one considers the permitted substance of the same type as though it were nonexistent? But didn’t Rabbi Asi ask Rabbi Yoḥanan the following question: If one had two cups of wine, one non-sacred and one of teruma, and he diluted them with water and mixed them together, and there is sufficient water in each of the cups to nullify the teruma wine, what is the halakha? Is the non-sacred wine, which is the same type of substance as the teruma wine, considered to be nonexistent, and the water in the mixture nullifies the teruma wine, or does the teruma wine render the non-sacred wine forbidden, and the water in both cups is insufficient to nullify the combined wine? And Rabbi Yoḥanan did not resolve the dilemma for him, indicating that he did not have a set opinion on the matter.

מעיקרא לא פשט ליה לבסוף פשט ליה אתמר נמי אמר רבי אמי אמר רבי יוחנן ואמרי לה אמר רבי אסי אמר רבי יוחנן שני כוסות אחד של חולין ואחד של תרומה ומזגן ועירבן זה בזה רואין את ההיתר כאילו אינו והשאר מים רבין עליו ומבטלין אותו

The Gemara answers: Initially he did not resolve the dilemma for him, but ultimately he resolved for him that the permitted substance of the same type is considered as though it were nonexistent. It was also stated that this was Rabbi Yoḥanan’s ultimate opinion, as Rabbi Ami says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says, and some say that it is Rabbi Asi who says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If one had two cups of wine, one non-sacred and one of teruma, and he diluted them with water and mixed them together, and there is sufficient water in each of the cups to nullify the teruma wine, one considers the permitted wine as though it were nonexistent, and as for the rest, the teruma wine, the volume of the water is greater than the volume of the wine and nullifies it.

זה הכלל מין במינו במשהו שלא במינו בנותן טעם

§ The mishna states that this is the principle: A substance in contact with the same type of substance renders the mixture forbidden with any amount of the forbidden substance, but a substance in contact with a different type of substance renders the mixture forbidden only in a case where it imparts flavor to it.

רב ושמואל דאמרי תרוייהו כל איסורין שבתורה במינן במשהו שלא במינן בנותן טעם

The Gemara presents an amoraic dispute with regard to this principle: Rav and Shmuel both say: With regard to any food forbidden by the Torah that becomes mixed with permitted food, if the permitted food is of its own type, then even any amount of the forbidden substance renders the entire mixture forbidden. If the forbidden food is mixed with another type of substance, then the mixture becomes forbidden only in a case where there is enough of the forbidden food to impart flavor to the mixture.

זה הכלל לאתויי מאי לאתויי כל איסורין שבתורה

According to Rav and Shmuel, what is added by the statement in the mishna: This is the principle, etc.? This is stated to include any food forbidden by the Torah, and not only wine used for a libation.

רבי יוחנן וריש לקיש דאמרי תרוייהו כל איסורין שבתורה בין במינן בין שלא במינן בנותן טעם חוץ מטבל ויין נסך במינן במשהו ושלא במינן בנותן טעם וזה הכלל לאתויי טבל

Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish both say: With regard to any food forbidden by the Torah that falls into a mixture, whether of its own type of food or another type of food, the mixture is forbidden in a case where there is enough of the forbidden item to impart flavor to the mixture. This is the halakha except for the cases of untithed produce and wine used for a libation, which render a mixture with their own type of food forbidden in a case where any amount of the forbidden food was mixed with the permitted food; but if they are mixed with another type of substance, the mixture is forbidden only in a case where it imparts flavor to it. And according to this opinion, the statement in the mishna: This is the principle, etc., is stated to include the case of untithed produce, which is not mentioned in the mishna explicitly.

תניא כוותיה דרב ושמואל תניא כוותיה דרבי יוחנן וריש לקיש

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav and Shmuel, and it is taught in another baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish.

תניא כוותיה דרב ושמואל כל איסורין שבתורה במינן במשהו שלא במינן בנותן טעם

The Gemara elaborates: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav and Shmuel: With regard to any food forbidden by the Torah that becomes mixed with a permitted food, in a case where the permitted food is of its own type, then even any amount of the forbidden substance renders the entire mixture forbidden. But in a case where the forbidden food was mixed with another type of substance, then the mixture becomes forbidden only in a case where there is enough of the forbidden item to impart flavor to the mixture.

תניא כוותיה דרבי יוחנן וריש לקיש כל איסורין שבתורה בין במינן בין שלא במינן בנותן טעם חוץ מטבל ויין נסך במינן במשהו שלא במינן בנותן טעם

It is taught in another baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish: With regard to any food forbidden by the Torah that falls into a mixture, whether of its own type of food or another type of food, the mixture is forbidden in a case where there is enough of the forbidden food to impart flavor to the mixture. This is the halakha except for the cases of untithed produce and wine used for a libation, which render a mixture with their own type of food forbidden in a case where any amount of the forbidden food was mixed with the permitted food; but if they are mixed with another type of substance, the mixture is forbidden only in a case where they impart flavor to it.

בשלמא יין נסך משום חומרא דעבודה זרה אלא טבל מאי טעמא

The Gemara asks: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish, why are untithed produce and wine used for a libation treated more stringently than other forbidden foods? Granted, wine used for a libation is treated stringently due to the severity of idol worship, but with regard to untithed produce, what is the reason that any amount of it that is mixed with permitted food of its own type renders the mixture forbidden?

כהיתירו כך איסורו דאמר שמואל חטה אחת פוטרת את הכרי ותניא נמי הכי במה אמרו טבל אוסר בכל שהוא במינו שלא במינו בנותן טעם

The Gemara answers: Just as it assumes its permitted status, so it assumes its forbidden status, as Shmuel says: Even one grain of wheat given as teruma exempts the entire heap of grain from the obligation of teruma. Since any amount of teruma given renders the entire heap of produce permitted, any amount of untithed produce also renders the entire mixture forbidden. And this is also taught in a baraita: With regard to what situation did the Sages say that any amount of untithed produce renders a mixture forbidden? It is with regard to untithed produce that becomes mixed with its own type, but with regard to untithed produce that becomes mixed with another type, the mixture is forbidden only in a case where the untithed produce imparts flavor to it.