ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Avodah Zarah 73
AVODAH ZARAH 72-76 - Sponsored by a generous grant from an anonymous donor.
Kollel Iyun Hadaf is indebted to him for his encouragement and support and
prays that Hashem will repay him in kind.
(a) The Isur of Yayin Nesech extends to water (Mayim Nesech), too.
(b) The Shiur our Mishnah gives for the Isur of Yayin Nesech is - 'Kol
(c) The Tana then gives the Shiur of 'Yayin be'Yayin' (Yayin Nesech that
falls into Kasher wine) and 'Mayim be'Mayim' as - 'Kol she'Hu'.
(d) Yayin Nesech requires 'Nosen Ta'am' to render Asur what it falls into -
if it is 'Miyn be'she'Eino Miyno'.
(a) When Rav Dimi arrived from Eretz Yisrael, he cited Rebbi Yochanan as
saying that if someone pours Yayin Nesech (even all day long) from a barrel
into a wine-pit - the wine become Batel as it falls into the pit.
(b) Rav Dimi will explain ...
1. ... the Reisha of our Mishnah, which gives the Shiur that Yayin Nesech
renders as 'Kol she'Hu' - when the Yayin Nesech is in the wine-pit, and it
is the Kasher wine in the barrel that is falling into it; and the same will
apply to ...
(c) Whereas 'Mayim be'Yayin, be'Nosen Ta'am' is speaking (not about water
which is Asur, like we initially think, but) about Heter that fell into
Isur, like the case of 'Yayin be'Mayim'.
2. ... the Seifa 'Yayin be'Mayim be'Nosen Ta'am'.
(a) When Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef arrived from Eretz Yisrael, he cited Rebbi
Yochanan as saying that if someone pours Yayin Nesech from a narrow jar into
a wine-pit all day long - the wine become Batel as it falls into the pit ...
(b) ... but in Rav Dimi's case (where he pours it from a barrel) - he would
forbid all the wine in the wine-pit.
(c) When Ravin arrived from Eretz Yisrael, he cited Rebbi Yochanan as saying
that if both Yayin Nesech and a large jar of water, fall into a wine-pit -
we ignore the Kasher wine ('Ro'in es ha'Heter ke'Ilu Eino'), and the water
nullifies the Yayin Nesech.
(d) When Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah arrived from Eretz Yisrael, he qualified
this ruling (also in the name of Rebbi Yochanan - by confining it to where
the water fell into the pit first, but where the wine fell in first, the
wine in the pit (which becomes Asur anyway) adds to the Yayin Nesech ('Matza
Miyn es Miyno, ve'Niy'ur'), and prevents the water that falls in later to
(a) Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef, Ravin and Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah (all quoting
Rebbi Yochanan) hold that in the case of Rav Dimi Amar Rebbi Yochanan, where
a barrel of wine falls into a wine-pit - the Yayin Nesech does not become
Batel, and all the wine is Asur.
(b) In the second Lashon, Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah Amar Rebbi Yochanan refers
to the Din in our Mishnah 'Yayin be'Yayin Kol she'Hu' - which he confines to
where a jar of water did not fall in too; where it did, then we apply the
Halachah of Ravin Amar Rebbi Yochanan (and the water annuls the Yayin
(c) The difference between the two Leshonos of Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah is -
that in the second Lashon, he does not require the water to fall in first,
like he does in the first.
(a) When Chizkiyah says that if Yayin Nesech and a large jar of water fall
into a wine-pit ...
1. ... 'Higdilu be'Isur, Asur', he means - that if the Kasher wine was in
the pit, and the Yayin Nesech and the water fell in afterwards (even if the
water preceded the Yayin Nesech), then the Yayin Nesech combines with the
Kasher wine, and the water cannot nullify it.
(b) According to Rebbi Yochanan - either way, we apply 'Ro'in', and the
water nullifies the Yayin Nesech.
2. ... 'Higdilu be'Heter, Mutar', he means - that if the water already
nullified the wine before the Kasher wine fell into the pit, then we apply
'Ro'in' to the Kasher that fell in later, and the Yayin Nesech is Batel.
(c) We already discussed the Mishnah in Orlah, where a yeast of Chulin and a
yeast of Terumah, neither of which were able to affect a dough on its own,
but together, they did. Rebbi Eliezer goes after the one that fell in last.
According to the Chachamim - as long as neither yeast is able to affect the
dough, it is permitted.
(d) Rebbi Yirmiyah tries to equate - Chizkiyah with Rebbi Eliezer (who goes
after the last one) and Rebbi Yochanan with the Rabbanan.
(a) Abaye qualifies Rebbi Eliezer's statement - by confining it to where the
forbidden yeast was removed. If it wasn't, then the dough is forbidden, even
if the Chulin yeast fell in last.
(b) The problem with Chizkiyah's opinion is then - like whom he holds. He
seems to hold neither like the Chachamim, who permit the dough even when the
Asur yeast fell in last, nor like Rebbi Eliezer, who agrees with that as
long as the Isur was not removed (like in Chizkiyah's case).
(c) The basis of the Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and the Rabbanan is -
whether we say 'Zeh ve'Zeh Gorem' is Asur (Rebbi Eliezer) or not (the
(d) The Machlokes between Chizkiyah and Rebbi Yochanan however, is whether
we apply the principle 'Ro'in' there where the Heter fell in first (as we
explained earlier). According to Chizkiyah, if the water and the Yayin
Nesech fall into the Kasher wine, we do not say 'Ro'in', even if the water
fell in first - because there is more wine in the pit than water, which
prevents it from nullifying the Yayin Nesech.
(a) Rebbi Asi asked Rebbi Yochanan - what the Din will be if someone had a
cup of Chulin wine and a cup of Terumah wine, both of which he diluted
before pouring one into the other - whether we apply the S'vara of 'Ro'in'
(to ignore the Kasher wine), in which case the combined water will nullify
the Yayin Nesech, or not.
(b) Rebbi Yochanan - did not reply.
(c) We reconcile this with his opinion in his Machlokes with Chizkiyah,
where he holds 'Ro'in' - by establishing them at different time periods.
Initially, he was not sure, later he was.
(d) We support this answer with a statement of Rebbi Ami or Rebbi Asi, Amar
Rebbi Yochanan, who rules - that we do apply 'Ro'in', allowing the water to
nullify the Yayin Nesech.
(a) Rav and Shmuel rule that by all Isurin in the Torah, 'Miyn be'Miyno
be'Mashehu - Miyn be'she'Eino Miyno, be'Nosen Ta'am'.
(b) According to them, when the Tana of our Mishnah concludes 'Zeh ha'K'lal,
Miyn be'Miyno be'Mashehu, Miyn be'she'Eino Miyno, be'Nosen Ta'am', he comes
to include - all the Isurim (apart from Yayin Nesech) in the Torah 'Miyn
be'Miyno' and 'Miyn be'she'Eino Miyno', respectively.
(c) Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue - by Miyn be'Miyno. According to
them, even 'Miyn be'Miyno' is Batel be'Nosen Ta'am ...
(d) ... with the sole exceptions of - Tevel and Yayin Nesech.
(a) According to Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish, 'Zeh ha'K'lal, Miyn
be'Miyno be'Mashehu' comes to include - the Isur of Tevel.
(b) Both opinions - enjoy the support of a Beraisa.
(c) The source for Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish's stringent ruling
regarding Yayin Nesech is 'Chumra da'Avodas-Kochavim; for their stringent
ruling by Tevel - the fact that one grain is enough to remove the Isur Tevel
('ke'Heteiro Kach Isuro').
(a) We learn that one grain is sufficient to fulfil the Mitzvah of Terumah
from - the Torah's vague Lashon "Reishis Degancha" (implying even one
(b) The Mishnah in Terumos which gives the average Shiur as a fiftieth - is
speaking mi'de'Rabbanan (whereas our Sugya is giving the Torah's Shiur).
(c) The Mishnah in Chalah gives the Shiur for 'Miyn be'she'Eino Miyno' by
Tevel as - 'Nosen Ta'am'.
(d) The reason for this is clearly - because the reason that we gave for the
Isur ('ke'Heteiro Kach Isuro'), does not apply by 'Miyn be'she'Eino Miyno',
proving this reason to be authentic.