Avodah Zarah, Daf Ayin Gimmel, Part 4
Introduction
Today s sugya continues to deal with a situation where both yayin nesekh and water fall into a vat of permitted wine.
איתמר יין נסך שנפל לבור ונפל שם קיתון של מים אמר חזקיה הגדילו באיסור אסור הגדילו בהיתר מותר
ורבי יוחנן אמר אפי’ הגדילו באיסור מותר
It was stated: If yayin nesekh fell into a vat and a flask of water also fell into it,
Hizkiyah said that if [the mixture] was increased in quantity through the prohibited element, then it is prohibited. But if the mixture was increased in quantity through the permitted element, then it is permitted.
R. Yohanan said: Even if it is increased in quantity through the prohibited element it is permitted.
According to Hizkiyah, if forbidden wine falls in first to a vat, then the entire mixture is prohibited. The fact that water falls in after will not change the fact that the entire mixture is prohibited. But if the forbidden wine and water are first mixed together, then this mixture will be permitted, assuming that the water nullifies the forbidden wine. If this entire mixture now falls into a vat of permitted wine, the entire vat remains pure.
R. Yohanan says that even in the first case, the mixture is permitted.
א"ל רבי ירמיה לרבי זירא לימא חזקיה ור’ יוחנן בפלוגתא דר"א ורבנן קמיפלגי דתנן שאור של חולין ושל תרומה שנפלו לתוך העיסה לא בזה כדי לחמץ ולא בזה כדי לחמץ ונצטרפו וחמצו ר"א אומר אחר אחרון אני בא וחכ"א בין שנפל איסור בתחלה ובין בסוף אינו אסור עד שיהא בו כדי להחמיץ
R. Yirmiyah said to R. Zera: Shall we say that Hizkiyah and R. Yohanan disagree over the same issue as R. Eliezer and the Rabbis, for we have learned: If leaven of non-sacred and leaven of terumah fell into dough, and in each there was an insufficient quantity to cause fermentation, but added together they caused fermentation: R. Eliezer says: I follow the [leaven] that fell in last. But the Sages say: Whether the prohibited leaven fell in first or last, [the dough] is not prohibited unless there is in it a sufficient quantity [of prohibited leaven] to cause fermentation!
R. Yirmiyah tries to pair Hizkiyah and R. Yohanan. According to R. Eliezer, the status of the dough depends on which dough falls in first. If prohibited dough falls in first, the whole mixture becomes prohibited. This is similar (to a certain extent) to Hizkiyah. But according to the rabbis, since there is not enough prohibited leaven to ferment the whole dough, the whole dough remains permitted. This is like R. Yohanan.
ותסברא והאמר אביי לא שנו אלא שקדם וסילק את האיסור אבל לא קדם וסילק את האיסור אסור חזקיה דאמר כמאן
But do you really think this makes sense, has not Abaye said: They only taught this [R. Eliezer s teaching] in a case where he first removed the prohibited leaven, but if he did not first remove the prohibited leaven, [the dough] is prohibited.
So with whom does Hezekiah agree!
The problem with R. Yirmiyah s statement is that Abaye said that R. Eliezer permits the mixture only if they first remove the prohibited leaven before the permitted leaven falls in together. But if they do not, then the prohibited leaven joins the permitted leaven to make the whole mixture prohibited. But this is not like Hizkiyah for Hizkiyah allows the mixture even if the prohibited wine is still there. Therefore, the equation of Hizkiyah and R. Eliezer falls apart.
אלא הכא ברואין קמיפלגי לחזקיה לית ליה רואין לרבי יוחנן אית ליה
Rather, they disagree over the principle of we see: Hezekiah does not hold by this principle and R. Yohanan does.
The Talmud resolves that the argument is over a principle called we see. This refers to a case where a two of the same substance (wine), one permitted and one prohibited, fall into a permitted substance of a different type. Do we pretend ( do we see ) that the permitted substance of the same type does not exist such that the permitted substance of a different type can nullify the prohibited substance, or do we not see the permitted substance as if it does not exist. Hizkiyah holds by this principle and R. Yohanan does not.
Note that creating such an abstract principle facilitates comparing this case with other cases in the Talmud. It is one of the benchmark s of the editors of the Talmud. They boil down one case to its essence, to allow it to be compared to other cases.
ומי אית ליה לרבי יוחנן רואין והא בעי מיניה ר’ אסי מרבי יוחנן שני כוסות אחד של חולין ואחד של תרומה ומזגן ועירבן זה בזה מהו ולא פשט ליה
Does R. Yohanan really hold by the principle of we see ? Did not R. Asi asked of R. Yohanan: Two cups, one containing non-holy wine and the other containing terumah wine, and one diluted them with water and then mixed the two together? And he did not answer the question.
R. Asi asks R. Yohanan a question that seems to depend on whether we invoke the principle of we see. If we do, then the water would annul the terumah wine and anyone can drink this mixture? If we do not, then the mixture can only be drunk by kohanim.
מעיקרא לא פשט ליה לבסוף פשט ליה
At first he did not answer him, but subsequently he did.
Later, R. Yohanan answered R. Asi indeed, we do invoke the principle of we see and the wine is permitted.
אתמר נמי א"ר אמי א"ר יוחנן ואמרי לה א"ר אסי א"ר יוחנן ב’ כוסות אחד של חולין ואחד של תרומה ומזגן ועירבן זה בזה רואין את ההיתר כאילו אינו והשאר מים רבין עליו ומבטלין אותו:
It has also been stated: R. Ami said in the name of R. Yohanan, and others say R. Asi said in the name of R. Yohanan: Two cups, one containing non-holy wine and the other containing terumah wine, and a person diluted them with water and then mixed the two together, we view the permitted element as non-existent and as for the remainder the water is greater than it and annuls it.
Here the question that R. Asi asked of R. Yohanan above is presented as a declarative statement.