Avodah Zarah 72b (עב:) — the Talmud in English

And he returned and measured

wine

into the Jew’s small flask,

if it contains a residue of forbidden wine.”

The Gemara infers:

The residue of wine [that same residue of wine that remained in the funnel]

by what means is it rendered forbidden:

—

the funnel did not touch the yayin nesekh

? Is it not through the nitzok [was it not rendered forbidden by the stream of wine that connected it to the yayin nesekh] ?!

If so,

infer from this

that

the nitzok

constitutes a

connection

in the case of yayin nesekh!

The Gemara says:

Rabbi Hiyya taught [Rabbi Hiyya added in his version of the Mishna]

, “His small flask caused it to overflow.”

That is, the Jew filled the gentile’s vessel to the brim, and the wine in the vessel touched the funnel. It follows that the residue of wine was rendered forbidden through direct contact between it and the yayin nesekh.

The Gemara raises an objection:

But if his small flask did not cause it to overflow, what is the ruling? Is it not forbidden?!

If so, in any event

resolve

from Rabbi Hiyya’s statement

that the nitzok is not a connection?

And the Gemara rejects this:

No! From the fact that his small flask caused it to overflow, you can resolve that it is forbidden.

But

the status of the nitzok remains unresolved.

Another proof:

Come and hear:

we learned in the Mishna:

“If one pours from one vessel into another, that from which he pours is permitted.”

The Gemara understood this to be referring to a Jew pouring wine into a gentile’s vessel. The Gemara infers that only the wine in the upper vessel is permitted;

but that which is between them,

the wine in the nitzok between the two vessels, is

forbidden.

Infer from this that the nitzok is a connection!

The Gemara raises an objection:

If the nitzok is a connection, even the wine in the upper vessel [the wine in the upper vessel]

should also be forbidden?

The Gemara answers:

This is not difficult, as the stream is cut off in drops.

That is, the stream from the upper vessel was interrupted before the nitzok touched the lower vessel. But

in any event,

if there was a

nitzok,

it is a

connection.

The Gemara rejects the proof:

And according to your reasoning,

if it is as you inferred—that “that which is between them is forbidden”—

say the latter clause:

how will you interpret the latter clause, “that into which he pours is forbidden”? It implies that only

that into which he pours is forbidden; but that which is between them is permitted?

Rather, nothing can be inferred from this.

Another proof:

Come and hear:

we learned in a beraita:

“If one pours

wine

from a barrel into a pit, the stream descending from the edge of the barrel downward is forbidden.”

Apparently, the reason for the prohibition is the nitzok.

The Gemara rejects this:

Rav Sheshet interpreted it [Rav Sheshet explains the beraita],

as referring to

a gentile who is pouring,

and the nitzok is forbidden because

it comes through his force.

But no proof can be brought from here that when a Jew pours wine from a barrel into a pit, the nitzok is forbidden.

The Gemara raises an objection:

If

it is referring to

a gentile who is pouring, even the wine inside the barrel [what is inside the barrel]

should also be rendered forbidden?

The Gemara answers:

The force of a gentile renders wine forbidden only by rabbinic decree.

Therefore,

that which emerges outward [the wine that emerged outward through his force]

the Sages decreed upon it, whereas with regard to that which remains inside, the Sages did not issue a decree.

Rav Hisda said to those wine merchants [wine sellers]

, “When you measure wine [when you pour wine]

to

vessels belonging to

gentiles, cut off the stream in drops. Alternatively, shake it off in drops.”

So that there will not be a nitzok connecting the vessels.

And likewise

Rava said to those pourers [Jewish workers who pour wine from one vessel into another]

, “When you pour wine, do not let a gentile come near to assist you [do not allow a gentile to come near and assist you]

, lest you become exhausted and drop the barrel upon him [lest you become tired and drop the barrel on him]

, and it will come through his force, and it is forbidden.”

There was an incident involving

a certain man who was drawing wine with a gishtha and its companion pipe [he transferred wine from one vessel to another by means of a gishtha, that is, two pipes joined at their upper end at an angle; he sucked from one side until the wine rose, and it then passed from the barrel into the house by itself]

. A gentile came and placed his hand on the gishtha [he touched the end of the pipe through which the wine was flowing]

. Rava rendered all the wine forbidden [Rava forbade all the wine].

Rav Pappa said to Rava—and some say Rav Adda bar Mattana said to Rava, and some say Ravina said to Rava—“For what reason” [why did Rava render the wine forbidden]

? Because of the nitzok. Infer from this that the nitzok is a connection.

The Gemara rejects this:

There it is different, because all the wine is drawn through the gishtha and its companion pipe.

Since the wine flows by itself through the gishtha, the entire arrangement is considered like one elongated barrel. But no proof can be brought from here with regard to an ordinary nitzok.

Mar Zutra, son of Rav Nahman, said: A kenishkanin [a vessel with several pipes extending from its sides, from which several people can drink simultaneously]

is permitted.

A Jew and a gentile may drink together from the same vessel. Since, as long as one of them is sucking, the wine in his mouth does not flow back down into the vessel.]

And this applies when the Jew finishes first [it is permitted only if the Jew finishes drinking before the gentile]

, but if the gentile finishes first, it is not.

Since, when he finishes drinking, wine flows back from his mouth into the vessel.

Rabba bar Rav Huna happened to come to the house of the Exilarch, and he permitted them to drink from a kenishkanin.