Avodah Zarah, Daf Ayin Gimmel, Part 3

 

Introduction

Today s section is a direct continuation of yesterday s concerning a person who pours a prohibited substance, yayin nesekh, into a permitted substance, kosher 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 R. Yitzchak b. Yosef came [from Eretz Yisrael] he reported in the name of R. Yohanan: If one pours yayin nesek from a small canteen into a vat, even the whole day long, each drop is annulled. This applies only to a small canteen whose pour-stream is not considerable but to a cask whose pour-stream is considerable it does not apply.

 

This is a slightly more limited version of R. Dimi s statement from yesterday s section. If one pours yayin nesekh from a small vessel into a large vat, each drop is annulled. But if one pours from a large vessel, enough yayin nesekh falls in at once such that it cannot be annulled.

 

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 Rabin came [from Eretz Yisrael] he reported in the name of R. Yohanan: If yayin nesekh fell into a vat and a flask of water also fell into it, we consider the permitted [portion of the wine] as if it does not exist and as for the remainder, the water is greater than it, and it annuls it.

 

Rabin s statement is a third tradition coming from R. Yohanan. To understand this we have to remember that according to the Mishnah, if yayin nesekh falls into kosher wine, the prohibited portion causes the entire mixture to be prohibited, even if it is the smallest amount. This is a case of a species becoming mixed with its own species. But if the prohibited wine falls into water, it must give taste to the water for the mixture to become prohibited. Rabin addresses a case where water and nesekh fall into a vat of wine. In such a case, we can ignore the permitted wine, and not see this is as a case of yayin nesekh falling into permitted wine. Rather, we look at it as if the nesekh fell into the water. If there is enough water to annul the taste of the small amount of nesekh (and there probably is) then the entire vat remains permitted.

 

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

 

R. Shmuel b. Judah said in the name of R. Yohanan: This teaching applies only when a flask of water fell into it first, but if a flask of water did not fall into it first one species finds its own species and is awoken.

 

If the wine falls into the vat first, then the entire vat becomes prohibited because both are the same species. Only if the water falls in first can we consider it as having annulled 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

 

There are some who connect [this statement of R. Shmuel b. Judah’s] with our Mishnah: Wine [that falls into] other wine [disqualifies] by the smallest quantity. R. Shmuel b. Judah said in the name of R. Yohanan: This teaching applies only when a flask of water did not fall into it, but if a flask of water did fall into it we consider the permitted [portion of the wine] as if it does not exist and as for the remainder the water is greater than it, and it annuls it.

 

In this version of R. Shmuel b. Judah s statement, he makes his statement about the mishnah, not with regard to Rabin s statement.

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

 

What difference is there whether [R. Shmuel’s statement] is connected with our Mishnah or Rabin’s statement?

The one who teaches it about our Mishnah does not require [the flask of water to fall in] first, but the one who teaches it about Rabin’s statement does require [it to fall in] first.

 

The difference between the two statements is whether the flask of water must fall in first. If it is taught about the mishnah, then R. Shmuel b. Judah just said that there must be a flask of water that falls into the vat. It can fall in there right after the yayin nesekh falls in. But if we teach it about Rabin s statement, then R. Shmuel b. Judah must come to add that the flask of water must fall in first for the vat to remain prohibited.