Avodah Zarah 73a:10עבודה זרה ע״ג א:י
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Avodah Zarah 73a:10"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
73aע״ג א

איכא דאמרי רבה בר רב הונא גופיה אישתי בקנישקנין:

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

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

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

זה הכלל מין במינו במשהו ושלא במינו בנותן טעם:

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

גמ׳ כי אתא רב דימי א"ר יוחנן המערה יין נסך מחבית לבור אפילו כל היום כולו ראשון ראשון בטל

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

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

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

ת"ש יין במים בנותן טעם מאי לאו דקא נפיל חמרא דאיסורא למיא דהתירא לא דקא נפיל חמרא דהתירא למיא דאיסורא

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

איתמר יין נסך שנפל לבור ונפל שם קיתון של מים

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