Previous daf

1)

(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 she'Hu'.

(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 ...
2. ... the Seifa 'Yayin be'Mayim be'Nosen Ta'am'.

(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'.

(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 nullify it.

(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 Nesech).

(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.

5)

(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.
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.

(b) According to Rebbi Yochanan - either way, we apply 'Ro'in', and the water nullifies the Yayin Nesech.

(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 Rabbanan).

(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 grain).

(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.