Avodah Zarah 73a (עג.) — the Talmud in English

Some say: Rabba bar Rav Huna himself drank from kankishkanin.

Mishna:

Sacrificial wine is forbidden

for benefit,

and

if it became mixed with kosher wine,

it renders it forbidden in any quantity.

However, only if

wine

of sacrificial wine became mixed

with wine

that is kosher, or

with water

that had been used as a libation for idolatry

with water

that is kosher, does it render the mixture forbidden

in any quantity.

But if

wine

of sacrificial wine became mixed

with water

that is kosher, or

water

that is forbidden became mixed

with wine

that is kosher, it is forbidden only

when it imparts flavor.

That is, when the forbidden substance imparts its flavor to the permitted substance.

This is the principle: A type

of forbidden substance that became mixed

with its own type

of permitted substance, such as wine with wine, renders it forbidden

in any quantity. And

a type

with a different type

is forbidden only

when it imparts flavor.

The particulars of these laws will be explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

We learned: “Sacrificial wine is forbidden and renders a mixture forbidden in any quantity.” The Gemara explains in which circumstances sacrificial wine renders kosher wine forbidden in any quantity.

When

he returned

Rav Dimi

from Eretz Yisrael,

he said

the following in the name of

Rabbi Yoḥanan: If one pours sacrificial wine from a barrel into a pit

containing kosher wine,

even throughout the entire day,

meaning, even if ultimately there was more sacrificial wine in the pit than kosher wine,

the first [drop] is nullified as it comes.

That is, each drop of forbidden wine that fell into the kosher wine was nullified and became permitted. Therefore, all the wine is permitted for benefit. )

The Gemara raised an objection: In our Mishna

we learned: “Sacrificial wine is forbidden and renders a mixture forbidden in any quantity.” Is that not

referring also to the case

where the forbidden substance fell into the permitted substance

[where sacrificial wine fell into kosher wine],

and even so we do not say “the first [drop] is nullified as it comes,” but rather all of it is forbidden?!

The Gemara answers:

No!

The Mishna is dealing only with the case

where the permitted substance fell into the forbidden substance

[where permitted wine fell into a barrel of forbidden wine]. In that case, each successive portion of permitted wine is nullified in the forbidden wine, and all of it is forbidden. But if forbidden wine fell into permitted wine, all of it is permitted, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan.

Come

and hear another proof concerning this matter from our Mishna:

“Wine

that became mixed

with water

renders it forbidden

when it imparts flavor.”

The Gemara infers:

Is that not

referring to the case

where forbidden wine fell into permitted water

[where forbidden wine fell into permitted water], and once the wine imparts flavor to the water, all of it is forbidden, and we do not say “the first [drop] is nullified as it comes”?!

The Gemara answers:

No!

The Mishna is dealing with the case

where permitted wine fell into forbidden water

[where permitted wine fell into forbidden water], and where all of it fell into the water at once.

And it teaches us this.

And

we still have a difficulty: If, as you say, the Mishna is dealing with permitted wine that fell into forbidden water, then

since the first clause deals with forbidden water, the latter clause must also deal with forbidden water

[it stands to reason that the latter clause also deals with forbidden water],

, and it teaches

in

the latter clause: “Water

that fell

into wine

renders it forbidden

when it imparts flavor,”

and we do not say “the first [drop] is nullified as it comes”?

The Gemara answers:

Rav Dimi could say to you: The entire Mishna deals with permitted substance falling into forbidden substance.

[The entire Mishna deals with the case where the permitted substance fell into the forbidden substance.] But if the forbidden substance fell into the permitted substance, the first [drop] is nullified as it comes.

And

in

the first clause

it is dealing

with permitted wine falling into forbidden water

[where permitted wine fell into forbidden water].

And in

the latter clause, with permitted water falling into forbidden wine

[where permitted water fell into forbidden wine].

This concludes the Gemara’s discussion of Rav Dimi’s statement in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan. Below it will be explained that the halakha does not follow Rav Dimi’s statement in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan; rather, sacrificial wine that falls into its own type always renders the mixture forbidden in any quantity.

When

he returned

Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef

from Eretz Yisrael,

he said

in the name of

Rabbi Yoḥanan: If one pours sacrificial wine from a small flask

[a jug]

into a pit, even throughout the entire day, the first [drop] is nullified as it comes.

And this applies specifically

when he pours from

a small flask, whose stream is not broad

[the stream of wine issuing from it is not particularly broad],

but

one who pours from

a barrel

into a pit,

whose stream is broad, does not

[and not as Rav Dimi said, permitting the wine even when it is poured from a barrel into a pit]. When he returned

Ravin

from Eretz Yisrael,

he said

in the name of

Rabbi Yoḥanan: If sacrificial wine fell into a pit

containing permitted wine,

and

afterward

a pitcher of water fell there

containing a quantity sixty times greater than the forbidden wine, but not a quantity sixty times greater than all the wine in the pit, we do not say that all the wine in the pit had already become forbidden, and therefore the water cannot nullify the forbidden substance. Rather,

we view the

wine

that was permitted

and was initially in the pit

as though it were not present, and the remaining water is more abundant than the forbidden wine and nullifies it.

When

he returned

Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda

from Eretz Yisrael,

he said

in the name of

Rabbi Yoḥanan: They taught this only when a pitcher of water fell first,

before the sacrificial wine fell. In that case, even though sacrificial wine subsequently fell there, the permitted wine that had been there beforehand is not rendered forbidden, despite being of the same type as the forbidden wine; rather, the water is more abundant than the forbidden wine and nullifies it.

But

if

a pitcher of water did not fall there first,

and sacrificial wine fell into permitted wine and rendered it forbidden,

the type encountered its own type and became reawakened.

That is, all the wine becomes forbidden wine, and the water that falls afterward is incapable of nullifying it.

Some taught this statement in relation to the Mishna,

meaning that some taught Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda’s statement with regard to the Mishna that we learned:

“Wine mixed with wine [is forbidden] in any quantity,”

and concerning this law

Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: They taught

in the Mishna that forbidden wine that fell into permitted wine renders it forbidden in any quantity

only

in the case

where no pitcher of water fell there. But

if

a pitcher of water fell there, we view the permitted substance as though it were not present, and the remaining water is more abundant than the forbidden wine and nullifies it.

The Gemara asks:

What difference is there between one who teaches it in relation to the Mishna

[what practical difference is there between one who taught Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda’s statement]

in relation to the Mishna and one who teaches it in relation to the words of

Ravin?

And it explains:

The one who teaches it in relation to the Mishna does not require

“first.”

That is, he need not interpret Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda’s statement specifically as referring to a case where the pitcher of water fell there first; even if the water fell at the end, it nullifies the forbidden substance.

But the one who teaches it in relation to Ravin requires “first.”

That is, he must interpret Rav Shmuel’s statement as referring only to a case where the water fell there first. Otherwise, what did Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda add to Ravin’s statement?!

It was stated

that this halakha was said in the beit-midrash:

Sacrificial wine that fell into a pit

containing kosher wine

, and a pitcher of water fell there,

and the case is one in which, if we do not take into account the kosher wine that was initially in the pit, the water is sufficient to nullify the forbidden wine, but if we combine the kosher wine with the forbidden wine, the water is insufficient to nullify it.