Avodah Zarah 73a — the Talmud in English

There are those who say: Rabbah bar Rav Huna himself drank from kanishkanin.

Mishna:

Libation wine is forbidden

for benefit,

and

if it became mixed with kosher wine,

it forbids it in any amount.

However, only if

wine

of libation

with wine

that is kosher became mixed, or

water

that was poured as a libation for idolatry

with water

that is kosher, then they forbid

in any amount.

But if

wine

of libation became mixed

with water

that is kosher, or

water

that is forbidden

with wine

that is kosher, it is forbidden only

when it imparts flavor.

That is, when the forbidden substance imparts flavor into the permitted substance.

This is the general rule: A species

of forbidden substance that became mixed

with its own species

of permitted substance, such as wine with wine, forbids

in any amount. And

a species

not with its own species

is forbidden only

when it imparts flavor.

And the details of the laws will be explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

We learned: “Libation wine is forbidden and forbids in any amount.” The Gemara explains in which cases libation wine forbids kosher wine in any amount.

When

he returned

Rav Dimi

from the Land of Israel,

he said

the following words in the name of

Rabbi Yohanan: One who pours libation wine from a barrel into a pit

that contains kosher wine,

even throughout the entire day,

that is, even if ultimately there was more libation wine in the pit than kosher wine,

the first is nullified first.

That is, each drop of the 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: Behold, in our Mishna

we learned: “Libation wine is forbidden and forbids in any amount.” Is that not

speaking also of a case

in which the forbidden substance falls into the permitted substance

[in which libation wine fell into kosher wine],

and even so we do not say “the first is nullified first,” but all of it is forbidden?!

The Gemara answers:

No!

The Mishna is speaking only of a case

in which the permitted substance falls into the forbidden substance

[in which permitted wine fell into a barrel of forbidden wine], and then the first permitted portion is nullified in the forbidden substance, and all of it is forbidden. But if forbidden wine fell into permitted wine, all of it is permitted, in accordance with the words of Rabbi Yohanan.

Come and hear

another proof concerning this matter from our Mishna:

“Wine

that became mixed

with water

forbids

when it imparts flavor.”

The Gemara infers:

Is that not

speaking of a case

in which forbidden wine falls into permitted water

[in which forbidden wine fell into permitted water], and from the moment that the wine imparts flavor into the water, all of it is forbidden, and we do not say “the first is nullified first”?!

The Gemara answers:

No!

The Mishna is speaking of a case

in which permitted wine falls into forbidden water

[permitted wine fell into forbidden water], and in a manner in which all of it fell at once into the water.

And it teaches us this.

And

we still have a difficulty: if it is as you say, that the Mishna is speaking of permitted wine that fell into forbidden water, then

since the first clause is speaking of forbidden water, the latter clause too is speaking of forbidden water

[it is logical that the latter clause also speaks of forbidden water],

and it teaches

in the

latter clause: “Water

that fell

into wine

forbids

when it imparts flavor,”

and we do not say “the first is nullified first”?

The Gemara answers:

Rav Dimi can say to you: The entire Mishna concerns permitted substance entering forbidden substance.

[The entire Mishna speaks of a case in which the permitted substance fell into the forbidden substance.] But if the forbidden substance fell into the permitted substance, the first is nullified first.

And

in the

first clause

it is speaking

of forbidden wine falling into forbidden water

[permitted wine falling into forbidden water].

And in the

latter clause, of permitted water falling into forbidden wine

[permitted water falling into forbidden wine].

This concludes the Gemara’s discussion of the words of Rav Dimi in the name of Rabbi Yohanan. Below it will be explained that the halakha is not in accordance with the words of Rav Dimi in the name of Rabbi Yohanan, and that libation wine that fell into its own species always forbids in any amount.

When

he returned

Rav Yitzhak bar Yosef

from the Land of Israel,

he said

in the name of

Rabbi Yohanan: One who pours libation wine from a small flask

[a jug]

into a pit, even throughout the entire day, the first is nullified first.

And specifically

if he poured from a

small flask, whose stream is not broad

[the stream of wine falling from it is not so wide]; but

if he pours from a

one who pours from

barrel

into a pit,

whose stream is broad, no.

And not as Rav Dimi, who permits even if he poured from a barrel into a pit. When he returned

Ravin

from the Land of Israel,

he said

in the name of

Rabbi Yohanan: Libation wine that fell into a pit

of permitted wine,

and

afterward

a pitcher of water fell there

that contained sixty times the forbidden wine, but did not contain sixty times all the wine in the pit, one does not say: The entire wine in the pit has already become forbidden, and therefore the water cannot nullify the prohibition. Rather,

we view the

wine

of the permitted substance

that was initially in the pit

as though it does not exist, and the remainder—the water—is more plentiful than it and nullifies it.

When

he returned

Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda

from the Land of Israel,

he said

in the name of

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

before the libation wine fell, and then, although libation wine subsequently fell there, one does not forbid the permitted wine that had been there previously, even though it is of the same species as the forbidden wine; rather, the water is more plentiful than the forbidden wine and nullifies it.

But

if

a pitcher of water did not fall there first,

and libation wine fell into permitted wine and forbade it,

the species encountered its own species and was awakened.

That is, all the wine becomes forbidden wine, and the water that will fall afterward does not have the power to nullify it.

There are those who teach it in relation to our Mishna,

there are those who taught the words of Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda concerning the Mishna that we learned:

“Wine with wine—in any amount,”

and concerning this law

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

in the Mishna—that forbidden wine that fell into permitted wine forbids in any amount—

only

in a case

in which a pitcher of water did not fall there. But

if

a pitcher of water fell there, we view the permitted substance as though it does not exist, and the remainder—the water—is more plentiful than it and nullifies it.

The Gemara asks:

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

[what practical difference is there between one who taught the words of Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda]

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

Rav

Ravin?

And it explains:

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

“first.”

That is, he does not need to explain the words of Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda specifically in a manner in which a pitcher of water fell there first; even if the water fell at the end, it nullifies the prohibition.

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

That is, he must explain Rav Shmuel’s words only in a case in which the water fell there first. Otherwise, what did Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda add to the words of Ravin?!

It was stated:

this law was stated in the beit-midrash:

Libation wine that fell into a pit

that contained kosher wine

, and a pitcher of water fell there,

and the case is one in which, if we do not count 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 them.