Avodah Zarah 73
Share this shiur:
Masechet Avodah Zarah
Masechet Avodah Zarah is sponsored by the Talmud class of Congregation Beth Jacob in Redwood City, CA, in honor of the Hadran staff who make learning possible.
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Judith Rosenfeld Hochstadter, Gittel bat Kreindel v’Binyamin BenZion on her second yahrzeit. “Her curiosity, humor, intellect and devout nature continues to inspire and hold us accountable. We miss her and think of her in all our pursuits, especially in our Hadran learning, where she would be glad to know that she didn’t have to boil more than 1 egg at a time!!”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
This is the daf for Shabbat. For Friday’s daf, please click here.
The Mishna discusses the laws of nullification regarding yayin nesech (wine used for idolatry) that becomes mixed with permitted wine. It distinguishes between wine mixed with wine (min b’minu—same substance), which is forbidden in any amount, and wine mixed with water (min b’she’eino mino—different substance), which is prohibited only if it imparts taste.
Rav Dimi quotes Rabbi Yochanan as saying that if one pours yayin nesech from a barrel into a pit of kosher wine, each drop is immediately nullified upon contact. The Gemara raises three challenges to Rav Dimi’s interpretation based on the Mishna, and resolves them by reinterpreting the cases in the Mishna. Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef offers a narrower understanding of Rabbi Yochanan’s ruling—limiting it to pouring from a jug into a barrel, but not from a barrel into a pit.
Ravin also transmits a halakha in Rabbi Yochanan’s name regarding a mixture that includes a forbidden item combined with both a similar and a different substance. In such a case, the forbidden item is nullified by the different substance (e.g., yayin nesech mixed with wine and water), while the similar substance is viewed as if it is not there. Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda also quotes Rabbi Yochanan, but there are two versions of his statement. In one version, he disagrees with Ravin and limits the ruling to cases where the different substance was present first. In the other version, his comment refers to the Mishna, and he actually agrees with Ravin.
A debate between Chizkiya and Rabbi Yochanan also concerns a case where a forbidden item is mixed with both a similar and a different substance. What is the underlying basis of their disagreement?
Rav and Shmuel dispute the position of Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish regarding whether the distinction between mixtures of the same type and mixtures of different types applies universally to all prohibited items, or only to yayin nesech and tevel (untithed produce). The Gemara explains why the rabbis would have adopted a stricter approach with those two prohibitions.
The Mishna discusses the laws of nullification regarding yayin nesech (wine used for idolatry) that becomes mixed with permitted wine. It distinguishes between wine mixed with wine (min b’minu—same substance), which is forbidden in any amount, and wine mixed with water (min b’she’eino mino—different substance), which is prohibited only if it imparts taste.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Masechet Avodah Zarah
Masechet Avodah Zarah is sponsored by the Talmud class of Congregation Beth Jacob in Redwood City, CA, in honor of the Hadran staff who make learning possible.
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Judith Rosenfeld Hochstadter, Gittel bat Kreindel v’Binyamin BenZion on her second yahrzeit. “Her curiosity, humor, intellect and devout nature continues to inspire and hold us accountable. We miss her and think of her in all our pursuits, especially in our Hadran learning, where she would be glad to know that she didn’t have to boil more than 1 egg at a time!!”
Avodah Zarah 73
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא גּוּפֵיהּ אִישְׁתִּי בִּקְנִישְׁקְנִין.
There are those who say that Rabba bar Rav Huna himself drank from a kenishkanin.
מַתְנִי׳ יֵין נֶסֶךְ אָסוּר וְאוֹסֵר בְּכׇל שֶׁהוּא, יַיִן בְּיַיִן וּמַיִם בְּמַיִם בְּכׇל שֶׁהוּא, יַיִן בְּמַיִם וּמַיִם בְּיַיִן בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם.
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.
זֶה הַכְּלָל: מִין בְּמִינוֹ — בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ, וְשֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינוֹ — בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם.
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.
גְּמָ׳ כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַמְעָרֶה יֵין נֶסֶךְ מֵחָבִית לַבּוֹר, אֲפִילּוּ כׇּל הַיּוֹם כּוּלּוֹ — רִאשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן בָּטֵל.
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.
תְּנַן: יֵין נֶסֶךְ אָסוּר וְאוֹסֵר בְּכׇל שֶׁהוּא. מַאי לָאו דְּקָא נָפֵיל אִיסּוּרָא לְגוֹ הֶתֵּירָא? לָא, דְּקָא נָפֵיל הֶתֵּירָא לְגוֹ אִיסּוּרָא.
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.
תָּא שְׁמַע: יַיִן בְּמַיִם — בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם. מַאי לָאו דְּקָא נָפֵיל חַמְרָא דְּאִיסּוּרָא לְמַיָּא דְּהֶתֵּירָא? לָא, דְּקָא נָפֵיל חַמְרָא דְּהֶתֵּירָא לְמַיָּא דְּאִיסּוּרָא.
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.
וּמִדְּרֵישָׁא בְּמַיָּא דְּאִיסּוּרָא, סֵיפָא נָמֵי בְּמַיָּא דְּאִיסּוּרָא, וְקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: מַיִם בְּיַיִן — בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם! אָמַר לְךָ רַב דִּימִי: כּוּלָּהּ מַתְנִיתִין הֶתֵּירָא לְגוֹ אִיסּוּרָא, וְרֵישָׁא דְּקָא נָפֵיל חַמְרָא דְּהֶתֵּירָא לְמַיָּא דְּאִיסּוּרָא, סֵיפָא דְּקָא נָפֵיל מַיָּא דְּהֶתֵּירָא לַחֲמָרָא דְּאִיסּוּרָא.
The Gemara challenges: And from the fact that the first clause is referring to forbidden water, by inference, the latter clause is 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.
כִּי אֲתָא רַב יִצְחָק בַּר יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַמְעָרֶה יֵין נֶסֶךְ מִצַּרְצוּר קָטָן לְבוֹר, אֲפִילּוּ כׇּל הַיּוֹם כּוּלּוֹ — רִאשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן בָּטֵל. וְדַוְקָא צַרְצוּר קָטָן, דְּלָא נְפִישׁ עַמּוּדֵיהּ, אֲבָל חָבִית דִּנְפִישׁ עַמּוּדֵיהּ — לָא.
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.
כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: יֵין נֶסֶךְ שֶׁנָּפַל לַבּוֹר, וְנָפַל שָׁם קִיתוֹן שֶׁל מַיִם — רוֹאִין אֶת הַהֶיתֵּר כְּאִילּוּ אֵינוֹ, וְהַשְּׁאָר מַיִם רָבִין עָלָיו וּמְבַטְּלִין אוֹתוֹ.
§ 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.
כִּי אֲתָא רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יְהוּדָה, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁנָּפַל קִיתוֹן שֶׁל מַיִם תְּחִלָּה, אֲבָל לֹא נָפַל שָׁם קִיתוֹן שֶׁל מַיִם תְּחִלָּה — מָצָא מִין אֶת מִינוֹ וְנֵיעוֹר.
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.
אִיכָּא דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַמַּתְנִיתִין: יַיִן בְּיַיִן — כׇּל שֶׁהוּא. אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא נָפַל שָׁם קִיתוֹן שֶׁל מַיִם, אֲבָל נָפַל שָׁם קִיתוֹן שֶׁל מַיִם — רוֹאִין אֶת הַהֶיתֵּר כְּאִילּוּ אֵינוֹ, וְהַשְּׁאָר מַיִם רָבִין עָלָיו וּמְבַטְּלִין אוֹתוֹ.
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.
מַאי אִיכָּא בֵּין לִדְמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַמַּתְנִיתִין, בֵּין לִדְמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַדְּרָבִין? מַאן דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַמַּתְנִיתִין — לָא בָּעֵי תְּחִלָּה, וּמַאן דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַדְּרָבִין — בָּעֵי תְּחִלָּה.
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.
אִיתְּמַר: יֵין נֶסֶךְ שֶׁנָּפַל לַבּוֹר, וְנָפַל שָׁם קִיתוֹן שֶׁל מַיִם,
§ 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,
אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה: הִגְדִּילוּ בְּאִיסּוּר — אָסוּר, הִגְדִּילוּ בְּהֶיתֵּר — מוּתָּר.
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.
וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ הִגְדִּילוּ בְּאִיסּוּר — מוּתָּר.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה לְרַבִּי זֵירָא: לֵימָא חִזְקִיָּה וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרַבָּנַן קָמִיפַּלְגִי?
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?
דִּתְנַן: שְׂאוֹר שֶׁל חוּלִּין וְשֶׁל תְּרוּמָה שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לְתוֹךְ הָעִיסָּה, לֹא בָּזֶה כְּדֵי לְחַמֵּץ וְלֹא בָּזֶה כְּדֵי לְחַמֵּץ, וְנִצְטָרְפוּ וְחִמְּצוּ,
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.
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אַחַר אַחֲרוֹן אֲנִי בָּא, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: בֵּין שֶׁנָּפַל אִיסּוּר בַּתְּחִלָּה וּבֵין בַּסּוֹף — אֵינוֹ אָסוּר עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא בּוֹ כְּדֵי לְהַחְמִיץ.
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.
וְתִסְבְּרַאּ?! וְהָאָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁקָּדַם וְסִילֵּק אֶת הָאִיסּוּר, אֲבָל לֹא קָדַם וְסִילֵּק אֶת הָאִיסּוּר — אָסוּר. חִזְקִיָּה דְּאָמַר כְּמַאן?
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.
אֶלָּא, הָכָא בְּרוֹאִין קָמִיפַּלְגִי: לְחִזְקִיָּה לֵית לֵיהּ רוֹאִין, לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אִית לֵיהּ.
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.
וּמִי אִית לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן רוֹאִין? וְהָא בָּעֵי מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי אַסִּי מֵרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שְׁנֵי כּוֹסוֹת, אֶחָד שֶׁל חוּלִּין וְאֶחָד שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה, וּמְזָגָן וְעֵירְבָן זֶה בָּזֶה מַהוּ? וְלָא פְּשַׁט לֵיהּ!
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 between the two 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.
מֵעִיקָּרָא לָא פְּשַׁט לֵיהּ, לְבַסּוֹף פְּשַׁט לֵיהּ. אִתְּמַר נָמֵי: אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שְׁנֵי כּוֹסוֹת, אֶחָד שֶׁל חוּלִּין וְאֶחָד שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה, וּמְזָגָן וְעֵירְבָן זֶה בָּזֶה — רוֹאִין אֶת הַהֶיתֵּר כְּאִילּוּ אֵינוֹ, וְהַשְּׁאָר מַיִם רָבִין עָלָיו וּמְבַטְּלִין אוֹתוֹ.
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.
זֶה הַכְּלָל: מִין בְּמִינוֹ — בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ, שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינוֹ — בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם.
§ 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.
רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: כׇּל אִיסּוּרִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה — בְּמִינָן בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ, שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינָן — בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם.
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.
זֶה הַכְּלָל — לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? לְאֵתוֹיֵי כׇּל אִיסּוּרִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה.
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.
רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: כׇּל אִיסּוּרִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה, בֵּין בְּמִינָן בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינָן — בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם, חוּץ מִטֶּבֶל וְיֵין נֶסֶךְ — בְּמִינָן בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ, וְשֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינָן — בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם. וְזֶה הַכְּלָל — לְאֵתוֹיֵי טֶבֶל.
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.
תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל, תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ.
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.
תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל: כׇּל אִיסּוּרִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה, בְּמִינָן — בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ, שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינָן — בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם.
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.
תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: כׇּל אִיסּוּרִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה, בֵּין בְּמִינָן בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינָן — בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם, חוּץ מִטֶּבֶל וְיֵין נֶסֶךְ, בְּמִינָן — בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ, שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינָן — בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם.
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.
בִּשְׁלָמָא יֵין נֶסֶךְ, מִשּׁוּם חוּמְרָא דַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, אֶלָּא טֶבֶל מַאי טַעְמָא?
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?
כְּהֶיתֵּירוֹ כָּךְ אִיסּוּרוֹ, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: חִטָּה אַחַת פּוֹטֶרֶת אֶת הַכְּרִי. וְתַנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: בַּמֶּה אָמְרוּ טֶבֶל אוֹסֵר בְּכׇל שֶׁהוּא? בְּמִינוֹ, שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינוֹ — בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם.
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.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Skokie, IL, United States
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!
Raanana, Israel
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Minneapolis, United States
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Brookline, United States
תמיד רציתי. למדתי גמרא בבית ספר בטורונטו קנדה. עליתי ארצה ולמדתי שזה לא מקובל. הופתעתי.
יצאתי לגימלאות לפני שנתיים וזה מאפשר את המחוייבות לדף יומי.
עבורי ההתמדה בלימוד מעגן אותי בקשר שלי ליהדות. אני תמיד מחפשת ותמיד. מוצאת מקור לקשר. ללימוד חדש ומחדש. קשר עם נשים לומדות מעמיק את החוויה ומשמעותית מאוד.
מיתר, ישראל
I’ve been wanting to do Daf Yomi for years, but always wanted to start at the beginning and not in the middle of things. When the opportunity came in 2020, I decided: “this is now the time!” I’ve been posting my journey daily on social media, tracking my progress (#DafYomi); now it’s fully integrated into my daily routines. I’ve also inspired my partner to join, too!
Teaneck, United States
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
San Diego, United States
It has been a pleasure keeping pace with this wonderful and scholarly group of women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I started learning daf yomi at the beginning of this cycle. As the pandemic evolved, it’s been so helpful to me to have this discipline every morning to listen to the daf podcast after I’ve read the daf; learning about the relationships between the rabbis and the ways they were constructing our Jewish religion after the destruction of the Temple. I’m grateful to be on this journey!
Teaneck NJ, United States
Attending the Siyyum in Jerusalem 26 months ago inspired me to become part of this community of learners. So many aspects of Jewish life have been illuminated by what we have learned in Seder Moed. My day is not complete without daf Yomi. I am so grateful to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Community.
Newton, United States
A Gemara shiur previous to the Hadran Siyum, was the impetus to attend it.It was highly inspirational and I was smitten. The message for me was התלמוד בידינו. I had decided along with my Chahsmonaim group to to do the daf and take it one daf at time- without any expectations at all. There has been a wealth of information, insights and halachik ideas. It is truly exercise of the mind, heart & Soul
Hashmonaim, Israel
My husband learns Daf, my son learns Daf, my son-in-law learns Daf.
When I read about Hadran’s Siyyum HaShas 2 years ago, I thought- I can learn Daf too!
I had learned Gemara in Hillel HS in NJ, & I remembered loving it.
Rabbanit Michelle & Hadran have opened my eyes & expanding my learning so much in the past few years. We can now discuss Gemara as a family.
This was a life saver during Covid
Brooklyn, NY, United States
I began my journey with Rabbanit Michelle more than five years ago. My friend came up with a great idea for about 15 of us to learn the daf and one of us would summarize weekly what we learned.
It was fun but after 2-3 months people began to leave. I have continued. Since the cycle began Again I have joined the Teaneck women.. I find it most rewarding in so many ways. Thank you
New Jersey, United States
I started learning Daf in Jan 2020 with Brachot b/c I had never seen the Jewish people united around something so positive, and I wanted to be a part of it. Also, I wanted to broaden my background in Torah Shebal Peh- Maayanot gave me a great gemara education, but I knew that I could hold a conversation in most parts of tanach but almost no TSB. I’m so thankful for Daf and have gained immensely.
NJ, United States
I LOVE learning the Daf. I started with Shabbat. I join the morning Zoom with Reb Michelle and it totally grounds my day. When Corona hit us in Israel, I decided that I would use the Daf to keep myself sane, especially during the days when we could not venture out more than 300 m from our home. Now my husband and I have so much new material to talk about! It really is the best part of my day!
Hashmonaim, Israel
I went to day school in Toronto but really began to learn when I attended Brovenders back in the early 1980’s. Last year after talking to my sister who was learning Daf Yomi, inspired, I looked on the computer and the Hadran site came up. I have been listening to each days shiur in the morning as I work. I emphasis listening since I am not sitting with a Gamara. I listen while I work in my studio.
Tekoa, Israel
Hadran entered my life after the last Siyum Hashaas, January 2020. I was inspired and challenged simultaneously, having never thought of learning Gemara. With my family’s encouragement, I googled “daf yomi for women”. A perfecr fit!
I especially enjoy when Rabbanit Michelle connects the daf to contemporary issues to share at the shabbat table e.g: looking at the Kohen during duchaning. Toda rabba
Jerusalem, Israel
3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!
Raanana, Israel
Ontario, Canada
Avodah Zarah 73
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא גּוּפֵיהּ אִישְׁתִּי בִּקְנִישְׁקְנִין.
There are those who say that Rabba bar Rav Huna himself drank from a kenishkanin.
מַתְנִי׳ יֵין נֶסֶךְ אָסוּר וְאוֹסֵר בְּכׇל שֶׁהוּא, יַיִן בְּיַיִן וּמַיִם בְּמַיִם בְּכׇל שֶׁהוּא, יַיִן בְּמַיִם וּמַיִם בְּיַיִן בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם.
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.
זֶה הַכְּלָל: מִין בְּמִינוֹ — בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ, וְשֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינוֹ — בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם.
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.
גְּמָ׳ כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַמְעָרֶה יֵין נֶסֶךְ מֵחָבִית לַבּוֹר, אֲפִילּוּ כׇּל הַיּוֹם כּוּלּוֹ — רִאשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן בָּטֵל.
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.
תְּנַן: יֵין נֶסֶךְ אָסוּר וְאוֹסֵר בְּכׇל שֶׁהוּא. מַאי לָאו דְּקָא נָפֵיל אִיסּוּרָא לְגוֹ הֶתֵּירָא? לָא, דְּקָא נָפֵיל הֶתֵּירָא לְגוֹ אִיסּוּרָא.
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.
תָּא שְׁמַע: יַיִן בְּמַיִם — בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם. מַאי לָאו דְּקָא נָפֵיל חַמְרָא דְּאִיסּוּרָא לְמַיָּא דְּהֶתֵּירָא? לָא, דְּקָא נָפֵיל חַמְרָא דְּהֶתֵּירָא לְמַיָּא דְּאִיסּוּרָא.
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.
וּמִדְּרֵישָׁא בְּמַיָּא דְּאִיסּוּרָא, סֵיפָא נָמֵי בְּמַיָּא דְּאִיסּוּרָא, וְקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: מַיִם בְּיַיִן — בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם! אָמַר לְךָ רַב דִּימִי: כּוּלָּהּ מַתְנִיתִין הֶתֵּירָא לְגוֹ אִיסּוּרָא, וְרֵישָׁא דְּקָא נָפֵיל חַמְרָא דְּהֶתֵּירָא לְמַיָּא דְּאִיסּוּרָא, סֵיפָא דְּקָא נָפֵיל מַיָּא דְּהֶתֵּירָא לַחֲמָרָא דְּאִיסּוּרָא.
The Gemara challenges: And from the fact that the first clause is referring to forbidden water, by inference, the latter clause is 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.
כִּי אֲתָא רַב יִצְחָק בַּר יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַמְעָרֶה יֵין נֶסֶךְ מִצַּרְצוּר קָטָן לְבוֹר, אֲפִילּוּ כׇּל הַיּוֹם כּוּלּוֹ — רִאשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן בָּטֵל. וְדַוְקָא צַרְצוּר קָטָן, דְּלָא נְפִישׁ עַמּוּדֵיהּ, אֲבָל חָבִית דִּנְפִישׁ עַמּוּדֵיהּ — לָא.
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.
כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: יֵין נֶסֶךְ שֶׁנָּפַל לַבּוֹר, וְנָפַל שָׁם קִיתוֹן שֶׁל מַיִם — רוֹאִין אֶת הַהֶיתֵּר כְּאִילּוּ אֵינוֹ, וְהַשְּׁאָר מַיִם רָבִין עָלָיו וּמְבַטְּלִין אוֹתוֹ.
§ 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.
כִּי אֲתָא רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יְהוּדָה, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁנָּפַל קִיתוֹן שֶׁל מַיִם תְּחִלָּה, אֲבָל לֹא נָפַל שָׁם קִיתוֹן שֶׁל מַיִם תְּחִלָּה — מָצָא מִין אֶת מִינוֹ וְנֵיעוֹר.
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.
אִיכָּא דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַמַּתְנִיתִין: יַיִן בְּיַיִן — כׇּל שֶׁהוּא. אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא נָפַל שָׁם קִיתוֹן שֶׁל מַיִם, אֲבָל נָפַל שָׁם קִיתוֹן שֶׁל מַיִם — רוֹאִין אֶת הַהֶיתֵּר כְּאִילּוּ אֵינוֹ, וְהַשְּׁאָר מַיִם רָבִין עָלָיו וּמְבַטְּלִין אוֹתוֹ.
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.
מַאי אִיכָּא בֵּין לִדְמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַמַּתְנִיתִין, בֵּין לִדְמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַדְּרָבִין? מַאן דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַמַּתְנִיתִין — לָא בָּעֵי תְּחִלָּה, וּמַאן דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַדְּרָבִין — בָּעֵי תְּחִלָּה.
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.
אִיתְּמַר: יֵין נֶסֶךְ שֶׁנָּפַל לַבּוֹר, וְנָפַל שָׁם קִיתוֹן שֶׁל מַיִם,
§ 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,
אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה: הִגְדִּילוּ בְּאִיסּוּר — אָסוּר, הִגְדִּילוּ בְּהֶיתֵּר — מוּתָּר.
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.
וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ הִגְדִּילוּ בְּאִיסּוּר — מוּתָּר.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה לְרַבִּי זֵירָא: לֵימָא חִזְקִיָּה וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרַבָּנַן קָמִיפַּלְגִי?
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?
דִּתְנַן: שְׂאוֹר שֶׁל חוּלִּין וְשֶׁל תְּרוּמָה שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לְתוֹךְ הָעִיסָּה, לֹא בָּזֶה כְּדֵי לְחַמֵּץ וְלֹא בָּזֶה כְּדֵי לְחַמֵּץ, וְנִצְטָרְפוּ וְחִמְּצוּ,
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.
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אַחַר אַחֲרוֹן אֲנִי בָּא, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: בֵּין שֶׁנָּפַל אִיסּוּר בַּתְּחִלָּה וּבֵין בַּסּוֹף — אֵינוֹ אָסוּר עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא בּוֹ כְּדֵי לְהַחְמִיץ.
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.
וְתִסְבְּרַאּ?! וְהָאָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁקָּדַם וְסִילֵּק אֶת הָאִיסּוּר, אֲבָל לֹא קָדַם וְסִילֵּק אֶת הָאִיסּוּר — אָסוּר. חִזְקִיָּה דְּאָמַר כְּמַאן?
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.
אֶלָּא, הָכָא בְּרוֹאִין קָמִיפַּלְגִי: לְחִזְקִיָּה לֵית לֵיהּ רוֹאִין, לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אִית לֵיהּ.
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.
וּמִי אִית לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן רוֹאִין? וְהָא בָּעֵי מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי אַסִּי מֵרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שְׁנֵי כּוֹסוֹת, אֶחָד שֶׁל חוּלִּין וְאֶחָד שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה, וּמְזָגָן וְעֵירְבָן זֶה בָּזֶה מַהוּ? וְלָא פְּשַׁט לֵיהּ!
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 between the two 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.
מֵעִיקָּרָא לָא פְּשַׁט לֵיהּ, לְבַסּוֹף פְּשַׁט לֵיהּ. אִתְּמַר נָמֵי: אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שְׁנֵי כּוֹסוֹת, אֶחָד שֶׁל חוּלִּין וְאֶחָד שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה, וּמְזָגָן וְעֵירְבָן זֶה בָּזֶה — רוֹאִין אֶת הַהֶיתֵּר כְּאִילּוּ אֵינוֹ, וְהַשְּׁאָר מַיִם רָבִין עָלָיו וּמְבַטְּלִין אוֹתוֹ.
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.
זֶה הַכְּלָל: מִין בְּמִינוֹ — בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ, שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינוֹ — בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם.
§ 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.
רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: כׇּל אִיסּוּרִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה — בְּמִינָן בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ, שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינָן — בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם.
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.
זֶה הַכְּלָל — לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? לְאֵתוֹיֵי כׇּל אִיסּוּרִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה.
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.
רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: כׇּל אִיסּוּרִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה, בֵּין בְּמִינָן בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינָן — בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם, חוּץ מִטֶּבֶל וְיֵין נֶסֶךְ — בְּמִינָן בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ, וְשֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינָן — בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם. וְזֶה הַכְּלָל — לְאֵתוֹיֵי טֶבֶל.
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.
תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל, תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ.
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.
תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל: כׇּל אִיסּוּרִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה, בְּמִינָן — בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ, שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינָן — בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם.
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.
תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: כׇּל אִיסּוּרִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה, בֵּין בְּמִינָן בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינָן — בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם, חוּץ מִטֶּבֶל וְיֵין נֶסֶךְ, בְּמִינָן — בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ, שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינָן — בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם.
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.
בִּשְׁלָמָא יֵין נֶסֶךְ, מִשּׁוּם חוּמְרָא דַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, אֶלָּא טֶבֶל מַאי טַעְמָא?
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?
כְּהֶיתֵּירוֹ כָּךְ אִיסּוּרוֹ, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: חִטָּה אַחַת פּוֹטֶרֶת אֶת הַכְּרִי. וְתַנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: בַּמֶּה אָמְרוּ טֶבֶל אוֹסֵר בְּכׇל שֶׁהוּא? בְּמִינוֹ, שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינוֹ — בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם.
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.
