Previous Folio / ‘Abodah Zarah Directory / Tractate List / Home / Navigate Site

Babylonian Talmud: Tractate ‘Abodah Zarah

Folio 73a

Some say that Rabbah son of R. Huna himself drank from such a vessel.

MISHNAH. YEN NESEK IS PROHIBITED AND RENDERS [OTHER WINE] PROHIBITED BY THE SMALLEST QUANTITY. WINE [MIXED] WITH WINE AND WATER WITH WATER1  [DISQUALIFIES] BY THE SMALLEST QUANTITY. WINE [MIXED] WITH WATER AND WATER WITH WINE [DISQUALIFIES WHEN THE PROHIBITED ELEMENT] IMPARTS A FLAVOUR. THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE: WITH THE SAME SPECIES [THE MIXTURE IS DISQUALIFIED] BY THE SMALLEST QUANTITY, BUT WITH A DIFFERENT SPECIES [IT IS DISQUALIFIED WHEN THE PROHIBITED ELEMENT] IMPARTS A FLAVOUR.

GEMARA. When R. Dimi came [from Palestine] he reported that R. Johanan said: If one pours yen nesek from a cask into a vat,2  even the whole day long, the former is all the while annulled.3  We learnt: YEN NESEK IS PROHIBITED AND RENDERS [OTHER WINE] PROHIBITED BY THE SMALLEST QUANTITY! Does not this mean when the forbidden element fell into the permitted? — No, when the permitted fell into the prohibited.4

Come and hear: WINE [MIXED] WITH WATER [DISQUALIFIES WHEN THE PROHIBITED ELEMENT] IMPARTS A FLAVOUR. Does not this mean when prohibited wine fell into permitted water? — No, when permitted wine fell into prohibited water. If, however, the first clause [deals with] prohibited water, the second clause must likewise [deal with] prohibited water, but in the second clause he teaches: WATER WITH WINE [DISQUALIFIES WHEN THE PROHIBITED ELEMENT]5  IMPARTS A FLAVOUR!6  — R. Dimi can reply to you: Throughout our Mishnah it deals with the permitted falling into the prohibited, the first clause when permitted wine fell into prohibited water and the second when permitted water fell into prohibited wine.

When R. Isaac b. Joseph came [from Palestine] he reported in the name of R. Johanan: If one pours yen nesek from a small cooler7  into a vat, even the whole day long, the former is all the while annulled. This applies only to a small cooler whose jet is not considerable8  but not to a cask whose jet is considerable.

When Rabin came [from Palestine] he reported in the name of R. Johanan: If yen nesek fell into a vat and a ewer of water also fell into it, we consider the permitted [portion of the wine] as nonexistent and as for the remainder the water may prevail over it and annul it.9  When R. Samuel b. Judah came [from Palestine] he reported in the name of R. Johanan: This teaching only applies when the ewer of water fell in first, but if it did not fall in first a species met with its own species and is aroused.10  There are some who connect [this statement of R. Samuel b. Judah's] with our Mishnah: WINE [MIXED] WITH WINE [DISQUALIFIES] BY THE SMALLEST QUANTITY. R. Samuel b. Judah said in the name of R. Johanan: This teaching only applies when a ewer of water did not fall into it, but if a ewer of water did fall into it we consider the permitted [portion of the wine] as non-existent and as for the remainder the water may prevail over it and annul it. What difference is there whether [R. Samuel's statement] is connected with our Mishnah or Rabin's statement? — He who connects it with our Mishnah does not require [the ewer of water to fall in] first, but he who connects it with Rabin's statement does require [it to fall in] first.

It has been stated: If yen nesek fell into a vat and a ewer of water also fell into it,

Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files
  1. When one liquid has been used for a libation.
  2. And the wine in the vat is of sufficient quantity to absorb the yen nesek poured into it, viz., the proportion of sixty to one; v. supra 69a.
  3. Each portion of yen nesek is absorbed as it falls into the vat, however large the aggregate be, and the wine may be sold or used for any other purpose but actual drinking (Rashi).
  4. Whereas R. Dimi referred to the prohibited falling into the permitted; hence the difference.
  5. I.e., the water, on the present assumption.
  6. And so it is not true here that the prohibited element is absorbed.
  7. A stone vessel containing a strainer and having an indented (comb-like) rim (Jast.).
  8. And there is always a preponderance of pure wine of sixty to one.
  9. I.e., so long as the water is sixty times as much as the yen nesek the mixture is not disqualified.
  10. The two combine so that the wine is disqualified even if the quantity of water which mixes with it subsequently is sixty times the yen nesek.

‘Abodah Zarah 73b

 Hezekiah said that should [the mixture] have become increased in quantity through the prohibited element,1  then it is prohibited; but should it have become increased in quantity through the permitted element,2  then it is permitted. R. Johanan, however, said: Even when it becomes increased in quantity through the prohibited element it is permitted.3  R. Jeremiah said to R. Zera: Does this mean that Hezekiah and R. Johanan differ over the same issue as R. Eliezer and the Rabbis, for we have learnt: If leaven of non-holy and leaven of an offering fell into dough, and in each there was an insufficient quantity to cause fermentation, but added together they caused fermentation, R. Eliezer says: I decide according to which [leaven entered the dough] last. But the Sages say: Whether the disqualifying matter fell in first or last, [the dough] is not prohibited unless there is in it a sufficient quantity [of disqualifying matter] to cause fermentation!4  But how can you understand the passage in this way, for behold Abaye explained: The teaching [of R. Eliezer] only applies when he first removed the disqualifying matter, but if he did not first remove the disqualifying matter, [the dough] is prohibited.5  Now, then, with whom does Hezekiah agree!6  — But here the point of difference is7  whether we consider [the pure wine as non-existent],8  Hezekiah holding that we do not and R. Johanan that we do. Does, however, R. Johanan hold that we do consider [the pure wine as non-existent]? For behold R. Assi asked R. Johanan: How is it if there were two goblets, one containing secular wine and the other wine of a heave-offering, and a man diluted them with water and then mixed the two together?9  And he did not offer a decision!10  — At first he gave no decision but subsequently he did. For it has been similarly reported: R. Ammi said in the name of R. Johanan — another version is, R. Assi said in the name of R. Johanan: If there were two goblets, one containing secular wine and the other wine of a heave-offering, and a man diluted them with water and then mixed the two together, we consider the permitted element as non-existent and as for the remainder the water may prevail over it and annul it.

THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE: WITH THE SAME SPECIES [THE MIXTURE IS DISQUALIFIED] BY THE SMALLEST QUANTITY, BUT WITH A DIFFERENT SPECIES [IT IS DISQUALIFIED WHEN THE PROHIBITED ELEMENT] IMPARTS A FLAVOUR. Rab and Samuel both declare: With all the prohibited things of the Torah, should the mixture consist of the same species [it is disqualified] by the smallest quantity and with different species when [the prohibited element] imparts a flavour. What do the words THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE mean [accordingly] to include? — To include all the prohibited things of the Torah. R. Johanan and R. Simeon b. Lakish both declared: With all the prohibited things of the Torah, whether mixed with the same species or not, [they are disqualified when the prohibited element] imparts a flavour, with the exception of produce from which the heave-offering has not been taken and yen nesek. In these instances with the same species [the mixture is disqualified] by the smallest quantity, but with a different species when [the prohibited element] imparts a flavour. What [then] do the words THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE mean to include? — To include produce from which the heave-offering has not been taken.

There is a teaching in agreement with Rab and Samuel, and also one in agreement with R. Johanan and R. Simeon b. Lakish. There is a teaching in agreement with Rab and Samuel, viz.: With all the prohibited things of the Torah, should the mixture consist of the same species [it is disqualified] by the smallest quantity, and with different species when [the prohibited element] imparts a flavour. There is a teaching in agreement with R. Johanan and R. Simeon b. Lakish, viz.: With all the prohibited things of the Torah, whether mixed with the same species or not, [they are disqualified when the prohibited element] imparts a flavour, with the exception of produce from which the heave-offering has not been taken and yen nesek. In these instances with the same species [the mixture is disqualified] by the smallest quantity, but with a different species when [the prohibited element] imparts a flavour. This is quite right with yen nesek because of the seriousness of idolatry; but why with produce from which the heave-offering has not been taken? — Like its permissibility is its prohibition; for Samuel said: One grain of wheat can free the heap.11  And we learnt to the same effect: When [the Rabbis] declared that produce from which the heave-offering has not been taken renders [a mixture] prohibited by the smallest quantity, it refers to the same species, but when it is with a different species it must impart a flavour.12

Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files
  1. I.e., the water fell into the pure wine, and then yen nesek fell into it; and although the water is more than sixty times the forbidden element, the whole is prohibited. This teaching is at variance with that reported by Rabin in the preceding paragraph.
  2. The pure wine fell in last. In that event the yen nesek was annulled by the water before the other wine fell into it, and so the mixture is permitted.
  3. This is consistent with the view expressed in his name in the last paragraph. Since the water fell in first, it is not a case of a species meeting with its own species.
  4. [Supra p. 243. R. Jeremiah assumes that Hezekiah will hold with R. Eliezer that we decide according to which element entered last, whereas R. Johanan will agree with the Sages.]
  5. Whichever fell in last.
  6. According to R. Eliezer the contents of the vat would be prohibited whichever fell in last since the forbidden element had not been removed; and according to the Rabbis it would be allowed in any event.
  7. Not which fell in first or last.
  8. In calculating whether the water is sixty times as much as the yen nesek which fell into the vat.
  9. In the final mixture the water is sixty times as much as the holy wine.
  10. [This shows that R. Johanan was not quite decided on the question whether 'we consider etc.']
  11. The Torah does not prescribe how much is to be removed to constitute a heave-offering, so the obligation can be discharged with the smallest quantity. The same criterion is therefore applied to its power of rendering a mixture prohibited.
  12. Hal. III, 10.