Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

March 28, 2018 | 讬状讘 讘谞讬住谉 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Avodah Zarah 73

What are the measurements by which various items are cancelled? Is there a difference between wine offered as libations to non-Jews and other forbidden items? Is there a difference if it falls into the same type of substance or a different one? If it falls into a mixture that contains the same item and also a different item, do we view that as the same substance or a different substance?聽 Is there a difference if it falls into and gets mixed into the other substance or if it stands on its own and get mixed up with other similar items and it is unknown which item is the forbidden one?

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讙讜驻讬讛 讗讬砖转讬 讘拽谞讬砖拽谞讬谉

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

诪转谞讬壮 讬讬谉 谞住讱 讗住讜专 讜讗讜住专 讘讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讬讬谉 讘讬讬谉 讜诪讬诐 讘诪讬诐 讘讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讬讬谉 讘诪讬诐 讜诪讬诐 讘讬讬谉 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐

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.

讝讛 讛讻诇诇 诪讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 讘诪砖讛讜 讜砖诇讗 讘诪讬谞讜 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐

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.

讙诪壮 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诪注专讛 讬讬谉 谞住讱 诪讞讘讬转 诇讘讜专 讗驻讬诇讜 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讻讜诇讜 专讗砖讜谉 专讗砖讜谉 讘讟诇

GEMARA: When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he reported that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

转谞谉 讬讬谉 谞住讱 讗住讜专 讜讗讜住专 讘讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚拽讗 谞驻讬诇 讗讬住讜专讗 诇讙讜 讛转讬专讗 诇讗 讚拽讗 谞驻讬诇 讛转讬专讗 诇讙讜 讗讬住讜专讗

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鈥檚 statement? The Gemara rejects this: No, it is referring to a case where the permitted substance fell into the forbidden substance.

转讗 砖诪注 讬讬谉 讘诪讬诐 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚拽讗 谞驻讬诇 讞诪专讗 讚讗讬住讜专讗 诇诪讬讗 讚讛转讬专讗 诇讗 讚拽讗 谞驻讬诇 讞诪专讗 讚讛转讬专讗 诇诪讬讗 讚讗讬住讜专讗

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鈥檚 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.

讜诪讚专讬砖讗 讘诪讬讗 讚讗讬住讜专讗 住讬驻讗 谞诪讬 讘诪讬讗 讚讗讬住讜专讗 讜拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 诪讬诐 讘讬讬谉 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讻讜诇讛 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讛转讬专讗 诇讙讜 讗讬住讜专讗 讜专讬砖讗 讚拽讗 谞驻讬诇 讞诪专讗 讚讛转讬专讗 诇诪讬讗 讚讗讬住讜专讗 住讬驻讗 讚拽讗 谞驻讬诇 诪讬讗 讚讛转讬专讗 诇讞诪专讗 讚讗讬住讜专讗

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.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诪注专讛 讬讬谉 谞住讱 诪爪专爪讜专 拽讟谉 诇讘讜专 讗驻讬诇讜 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讻讜诇讜 专讗砖讜谉 专讗砖讜谉 讘讟诇 讜讚讜拽讗 爪专爪讜专 拽讟谉 讚诇讗 谞驻讬砖 注诪讜讚讬讛 讗讘诇 讞讘讬转 讚谞驻讬砖 注诪讜讚讬讛 诇讗

When Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he reported that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讬讬谉 谞住讱 砖谞驻诇 诇讘讜专 讜谞驻诇 砖诐 拽讬转讜谉 砖诇 诪讬诐 专讜讗讬谉 讗转 讛讛讬转专 讻讗讬诇讜 讗讬谞讜 讜讛砖讗专 诪讬诐 专讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讜诪讘讟诇讬谉 讗讜转讜

When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖谞驻诇 拽讬转讜谉 砖诇 诪讬诐 转讞诇讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 谞驻诇 砖诐 拽讬转讜谉 砖诇 诪讬诐 转讞诇讛 诪爪讗 诪讬谉 讗转 诪讬谞讜 讜谞讬注讜专

When Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda came from Eretz Yisrael he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗诪转谞讬转讬谉 讬讬谉 讘讬讬谉 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖诇讗 谞驻诇 砖诐 拽讬转讜谉 砖诇 诪讬诐 讗讘诇 谞驻诇 砖诐 拽讬转讜谉 砖诇 诪讬诐 专讜讗讬谉 讗转 讛讛讬转专 讻讗讬诇讜 讗讬谞讜 讜讛砖讗专 诪讬诐 专讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讜诪讘讟诇讬谉 讗讜转讜

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 Yo岣nan 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.

诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 诇讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘讬谉 诇讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗讚专讘讬谉 诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗诪转谞讬转讬谉 诇讗 讘注讬 转讞诇讛 讜诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗讚专讘讬谉 讘注讬 转讞诇讛

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鈥檚 statement, and so he needs the pitcher of water to have fallen in first.

讗讬转诪专 讬讬谉 谞住讱 砖谞驻诇 诇讘讜专 讜谞驻诇 砖诐 拽讬转讜谉 砖诇 诪讬诐

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,

讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 讛讙讚讬诇讜 讘讗讬住讜专 讗住讜专 讛讙讚讬诇讜 讘讛讬转专 诪讜转专

岣zkiyya 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.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讙讚讬诇讜 讘讗讬住讜专 诪讜转专

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

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诇专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇讬诪讗 讞讝拽讬讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘谞谉 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬

Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zeira: Shall we say that 岣zkiyya and Rabbi Yo岣nan disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis?

讚转谞谉 砖讗讜专 砖诇 讞讜诇讬谉 讜砖诇 转专讜诪讛 砖谞驻诇讜 诇转讜讱 讛注讬住讛 诇讗 讘讝讛 讻讚讬 诇讞诪抓 讜诇讗 讘讝讛 讻讚讬 诇讞诪抓 讜谞爪讟专驻讜 讜讞诪爪讜

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.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讞专 讗讞专讜谉 讗谞讬 讘讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讬谉 砖谞驻诇 讗讬住讜专 讘转讞诇讛 讜讘讬谉 讘住讜祝 讗讬谞讜 讗住讜专 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘讜 讻讚讬 诇讛讞诪讬抓

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, 岣zkiyya 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 Yo岣nan 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.

讜转住讘专讗 讜讛讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖拽讚诐 讜住讬诇拽 讗转 讛讗讬住讜专 讗讘诇 诇讗 拽讚诐 讜住讬诇拽 讗转 讛讗讬住讜专 讗住讜专 讞讝拽讬讛 讚讗诪专 讻诪讗谉

The Gemara responds: And how can you understand that this is the same dispute? But doesn鈥檛 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鈥檚 interpretation, in accordance with whose opinion does 岣zkiyya 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.

讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘专讜讗讬谉 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诇讞讝拽讬讛 诇讬转 诇讬讛 专讜讗讬谉 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬转 诇讬讛

Rather, here 岣zkiyya and Rabbi Yo岣nan 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. 岣zkiyya is not of the opinion that one considers it as though it were nonexistent, whereas Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讜诪讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讜讗讬谉 讜讛讗 讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讗住讬 诪专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖谞讬 讻讜住讜转 讗讞讚 砖诇 讞讜诇讬谉 讜讗讞讚 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 讜诪讝讙谉 讜注讬专讘谉 讝讛 讘讝讛 诪讛讜 讜诇讗 驻砖讟 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: And is Rabbi Yo岣nan of the opinion that one considers the permitted substance of the same type as though it were nonexistent? But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Asi ask Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan did not resolve the dilemma for him, indicating that he did not have a set opinion on the matter.

诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗 驻砖讟 诇讬讛 诇讘住讜祝 驻砖讟 诇讬讛 讗转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖谞讬 讻讜住讜转 讗讞讚 砖诇 讞讜诇讬谉 讜讗讞讚 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 讜诪讝讙谉 讜注讬专讘谉 讝讛 讘讝讛 专讜讗讬谉 讗转 讛讛讬转专 讻讗讬诇讜 讗讬谞讜 讜讛砖讗专 诪讬诐 专讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讜诪讘讟诇讬谉 讗讜转讜

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 Yo岣nan鈥檚 ultimate opinion, as Rabbi Ami says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says, and some say that it is Rabbi Asi who says that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讝讛 讛讻诇诇 诪讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 讘诪砖讛讜 砖诇讗 讘诪讬谞讜 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐

搂 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.

专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 讘诪讬谞谉 讘诪砖讛讜 砖诇讗 讘诪讬谞谉 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐

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.

讝讛 讛讻诇诇 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛

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.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 讘讬谉 讘诪讬谞谉 讘讬谉 砖诇讗 讘诪讬谞谉 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讞讜抓 诪讟讘诇 讜讬讬谉 谞住讱 讘诪讬谞谉 讘诪砖讛讜 讜砖诇讗 讘诪讬谞谉 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讜讝讛 讛讻诇诇 诇讗转讜讬讬 讟讘诇

Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖

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 Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 讘诪讬谞谉 讘诪砖讛讜 砖诇讗 讘诪讬谞谉 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐

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.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 讘讬谉 讘诪讬谞谉 讘讬谉 砖诇讗 讘诪讬谞谉 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讞讜抓 诪讟讘诇 讜讬讬谉 谞住讱 讘诪讬谞谉 讘诪砖讛讜 砖诇讗 讘诪讬谞谉 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐

It is taught in another baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讘砖诇诪讗 讬讬谉 谞住讱 诪砖讜诐 讞讜诪专讗 讚注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讗诇讗 讟讘诇 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗

The Gemara asks: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan 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?

讻讛讬转讬专讜 讻讱 讗讬住讜专讜 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讞讟讛 讗讞转 驻讜讟专转 讗转 讛讻专讬 讜转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讘诪讛 讗诪专讜 讟讘诇 讗讜住专 讘讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讘诪讬谞讜 砖诇讗 讘诪讬谞讜 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐

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.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Avodah Zarah 73

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Avodah Zarah 73

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讙讜驻讬讛 讗讬砖转讬 讘拽谞讬砖拽谞讬谉

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

诪转谞讬壮 讬讬谉 谞住讱 讗住讜专 讜讗讜住专 讘讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讬讬谉 讘讬讬谉 讜诪讬诐 讘诪讬诐 讘讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讬讬谉 讘诪讬诐 讜诪讬诐 讘讬讬谉 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐

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.

讝讛 讛讻诇诇 诪讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 讘诪砖讛讜 讜砖诇讗 讘诪讬谞讜 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐

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.

讙诪壮 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诪注专讛 讬讬谉 谞住讱 诪讞讘讬转 诇讘讜专 讗驻讬诇讜 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讻讜诇讜 专讗砖讜谉 专讗砖讜谉 讘讟诇

GEMARA: When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he reported that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

转谞谉 讬讬谉 谞住讱 讗住讜专 讜讗讜住专 讘讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚拽讗 谞驻讬诇 讗讬住讜专讗 诇讙讜 讛转讬专讗 诇讗 讚拽讗 谞驻讬诇 讛转讬专讗 诇讙讜 讗讬住讜专讗

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鈥檚 statement? The Gemara rejects this: No, it is referring to a case where the permitted substance fell into the forbidden substance.

转讗 砖诪注 讬讬谉 讘诪讬诐 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚拽讗 谞驻讬诇 讞诪专讗 讚讗讬住讜专讗 诇诪讬讗 讚讛转讬专讗 诇讗 讚拽讗 谞驻讬诇 讞诪专讗 讚讛转讬专讗 诇诪讬讗 讚讗讬住讜专讗

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鈥檚 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.

讜诪讚专讬砖讗 讘诪讬讗 讚讗讬住讜专讗 住讬驻讗 谞诪讬 讘诪讬讗 讚讗讬住讜专讗 讜拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 诪讬诐 讘讬讬谉 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讻讜诇讛 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讛转讬专讗 诇讙讜 讗讬住讜专讗 讜专讬砖讗 讚拽讗 谞驻讬诇 讞诪专讗 讚讛转讬专讗 诇诪讬讗 讚讗讬住讜专讗 住讬驻讗 讚拽讗 谞驻讬诇 诪讬讗 讚讛转讬专讗 诇讞诪专讗 讚讗讬住讜专讗

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.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诪注专讛 讬讬谉 谞住讱 诪爪专爪讜专 拽讟谉 诇讘讜专 讗驻讬诇讜 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讻讜诇讜 专讗砖讜谉 专讗砖讜谉 讘讟诇 讜讚讜拽讗 爪专爪讜专 拽讟谉 讚诇讗 谞驻讬砖 注诪讜讚讬讛 讗讘诇 讞讘讬转 讚谞驻讬砖 注诪讜讚讬讛 诇讗

When Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he reported that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讬讬谉 谞住讱 砖谞驻诇 诇讘讜专 讜谞驻诇 砖诐 拽讬转讜谉 砖诇 诪讬诐 专讜讗讬谉 讗转 讛讛讬转专 讻讗讬诇讜 讗讬谞讜 讜讛砖讗专 诪讬诐 专讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讜诪讘讟诇讬谉 讗讜转讜

When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖谞驻诇 拽讬转讜谉 砖诇 诪讬诐 转讞诇讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 谞驻诇 砖诐 拽讬转讜谉 砖诇 诪讬诐 转讞诇讛 诪爪讗 诪讬谉 讗转 诪讬谞讜 讜谞讬注讜专

When Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda came from Eretz Yisrael he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗诪转谞讬转讬谉 讬讬谉 讘讬讬谉 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖诇讗 谞驻诇 砖诐 拽讬转讜谉 砖诇 诪讬诐 讗讘诇 谞驻诇 砖诐 拽讬转讜谉 砖诇 诪讬诐 专讜讗讬谉 讗转 讛讛讬转专 讻讗讬诇讜 讗讬谞讜 讜讛砖讗专 诪讬诐 专讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讜诪讘讟诇讬谉 讗讜转讜

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 Yo岣nan 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.

诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 诇讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘讬谉 诇讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗讚专讘讬谉 诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗诪转谞讬转讬谉 诇讗 讘注讬 转讞诇讛 讜诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗讚专讘讬谉 讘注讬 转讞诇讛

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鈥檚 statement, and so he needs the pitcher of water to have fallen in first.

讗讬转诪专 讬讬谉 谞住讱 砖谞驻诇 诇讘讜专 讜谞驻诇 砖诐 拽讬转讜谉 砖诇 诪讬诐

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,

讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 讛讙讚讬诇讜 讘讗讬住讜专 讗住讜专 讛讙讚讬诇讜 讘讛讬转专 诪讜转专

岣zkiyya 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.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讙讚讬诇讜 讘讗讬住讜专 诪讜转专

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

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诇专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇讬诪讗 讞讝拽讬讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘谞谉 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬

Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zeira: Shall we say that 岣zkiyya and Rabbi Yo岣nan disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis?

讚转谞谉 砖讗讜专 砖诇 讞讜诇讬谉 讜砖诇 转专讜诪讛 砖谞驻诇讜 诇转讜讱 讛注讬住讛 诇讗 讘讝讛 讻讚讬 诇讞诪抓 讜诇讗 讘讝讛 讻讚讬 诇讞诪抓 讜谞爪讟专驻讜 讜讞诪爪讜

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.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讞专 讗讞专讜谉 讗谞讬 讘讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讬谉 砖谞驻诇 讗讬住讜专 讘转讞诇讛 讜讘讬谉 讘住讜祝 讗讬谞讜 讗住讜专 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘讜 讻讚讬 诇讛讞诪讬抓

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, 岣zkiyya 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 Yo岣nan 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.

讜转住讘专讗 讜讛讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖拽讚诐 讜住讬诇拽 讗转 讛讗讬住讜专 讗讘诇 诇讗 拽讚诐 讜住讬诇拽 讗转 讛讗讬住讜专 讗住讜专 讞讝拽讬讛 讚讗诪专 讻诪讗谉

The Gemara responds: And how can you understand that this is the same dispute? But doesn鈥檛 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鈥檚 interpretation, in accordance with whose opinion does 岣zkiyya 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.

讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘专讜讗讬谉 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诇讞讝拽讬讛 诇讬转 诇讬讛 专讜讗讬谉 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬转 诇讬讛

Rather, here 岣zkiyya and Rabbi Yo岣nan 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. 岣zkiyya is not of the opinion that one considers it as though it were nonexistent, whereas Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讜诪讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讜讗讬谉 讜讛讗 讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讗住讬 诪专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖谞讬 讻讜住讜转 讗讞讚 砖诇 讞讜诇讬谉 讜讗讞讚 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 讜诪讝讙谉 讜注讬专讘谉 讝讛 讘讝讛 诪讛讜 讜诇讗 驻砖讟 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: And is Rabbi Yo岣nan of the opinion that one considers the permitted substance of the same type as though it were nonexistent? But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Asi ask Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan did not resolve the dilemma for him, indicating that he did not have a set opinion on the matter.

诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗 驻砖讟 诇讬讛 诇讘住讜祝 驻砖讟 诇讬讛 讗转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖谞讬 讻讜住讜转 讗讞讚 砖诇 讞讜诇讬谉 讜讗讞讚 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 讜诪讝讙谉 讜注讬专讘谉 讝讛 讘讝讛 专讜讗讬谉 讗转 讛讛讬转专 讻讗讬诇讜 讗讬谞讜 讜讛砖讗专 诪讬诐 专讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讜诪讘讟诇讬谉 讗讜转讜

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 Yo岣nan鈥檚 ultimate opinion, as Rabbi Ami says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says, and some say that it is Rabbi Asi who says that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讝讛 讛讻诇诇 诪讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 讘诪砖讛讜 砖诇讗 讘诪讬谞讜 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐

搂 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.

专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 讘诪讬谞谉 讘诪砖讛讜 砖诇讗 讘诪讬谞谉 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐

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.

讝讛 讛讻诇诇 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛

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.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 讘讬谉 讘诪讬谞谉 讘讬谉 砖诇讗 讘诪讬谞谉 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讞讜抓 诪讟讘诇 讜讬讬谉 谞住讱 讘诪讬谞谉 讘诪砖讛讜 讜砖诇讗 讘诪讬谞谉 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讜讝讛 讛讻诇诇 诇讗转讜讬讬 讟讘诇

Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖

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 Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 讘诪讬谞谉 讘诪砖讛讜 砖诇讗 讘诪讬谞谉 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐

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.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讻诇 讗讬住讜专讬谉 砖讘转讜专讛 讘讬谉 讘诪讬谞谉 讘讬谉 砖诇讗 讘诪讬谞谉 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讞讜抓 诪讟讘诇 讜讬讬谉 谞住讱 讘诪讬谞谉 讘诪砖讛讜 砖诇讗 讘诪讬谞谉 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐

It is taught in another baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讘砖诇诪讗 讬讬谉 谞住讱 诪砖讜诐 讞讜诪专讗 讚注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讗诇讗 讟讘诇 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗

The Gemara asks: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan 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?

讻讛讬转讬专讜 讻讱 讗讬住讜专讜 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讞讟讛 讗讞转 驻讜讟专转 讗转 讛讻专讬 讜转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讘诪讛 讗诪专讜 讟讘诇 讗讜住专 讘讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讘诪讬谞讜 砖诇讗 讘诪讬谞讜 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐

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.

Scroll To Top