MIXTURES OF YAYIN NESECH (Yerushalmi Halachah 11 Daf 35b)

משנה יין נסך אסור ואוסר בכל שהוא יין ביין ומים במים כל שהוא


(Mishnah): Yayin Nesech is prohibited and any amount of it prohibits when in a mixture. For wine into wine and water into water (if water was used for idolatry), any amount prohibits.

יין במים ומים ביין בנותן טעם


Wine into water and water into wine, it is prohibited if its flavor can be tasted.

זה הכלל מין במינו כל שהוא ושלא במינו בנותן טעם:


This is the general rule - if the mixture is of the same kind, any amount prohibits; if they are different kinds, it prohibits only if its flavor can be tasted.

גמרא חזקיה אמר הדא דאת מר במקום שהמים נמכרין במידה אבל במקום שאין המים נמכרין במידה כיין ביין הן.


(Gemara) (Chizkiyah): (When the Mishnah taught that Nesech wine falling into water prohibits if its flavor can be tasted) this is water that is sold in specific quantities, but if not, it is like a case of wine into wine and any amount prohibits.

חזקיה אמר כוס שמזגו מאיסור ומהיתר ונפל איסור (בתוך)[בסוף] איסור והיתר (בתוך)[בסוף] היתר


(Chizkiyah): If both prohibited and permitted wine fell into a cup of water, but each of them was not sufficient to dilute that quantity of water - if the prohibited wine fell first, it becomes annulled in the water (and even when the permitted wine falls in and the total wine quantity becomes significant, it remains annulled) and the mixture is permitted. But if the permitted wine fell first, since there is no concept of annulment with a permitted item, the wine is not annulled and when the prohibited wine falls in, it prohibits the mixture.

א"ר שמואל דרבי ליעזר היא דרבי ליעזר אמר אחר אחרון אני בא


(R. Shmuel): This teaching of Chizkiyah follows the view of R. Eliezer. (The Mishnah in Orlah teaches that if non-sacred and Terumah yeast both fell into a dough and each are not enough to make it leaven but together they are), R. Eliezer says that we follow the status of the latter yeast to fall in. The Chachamim say that since the yeast of Terumah in insufficient to make it leaven, the dough is permitted (to non-Kohanim).

אמר רבי ירמיה חומר הוא ביין נסך


(R. Yirmiyah): (Disagrees) Chizkiyah could even follow the Chachamim there; but he is stringent here because it is Yayin Nesech.

רבי יוסי בעי אם חומר הוא ביין נסך אפילו נפל היתר בסוף יהא אסור


Question (R. Yosi): If so, he should prohibit even if the prohibited wine fell in first? (The Gemara does not answer this question.)

רבי אסי בשם רבי יוחנן כוס שמזגו מאיסור ומהיתר את רואה את ההיתר כמי שאינו והאיסור אם יש בו בנותן טעם אסור ואם לאו מותר


(R. Asi citing R. Yochanan): If both prohibited and permitted wine fell into a cup, you ignore the permitted one as if it is absent and as for the prohibited wine, if it gives flavor to the mixture, it is prohibited; otherwise, it is permitted.

אמר רבי הושעיה והוא שנפל היתר בסוף


(R. Hoshiyah): Only if the permitted wine fell in second.

רבי אמי בשם רבי יוחנן ולא שנייא בין שנפל איסור בתחילה והיתר בסוף היתר בתחילה ואיסור בסוף אפילו מים ביין אפילו נמזג כל צורכו מהיתר את רואה את ההיתר כמי שאינו והאיסור אם יש בו בנותן טעם אסור ואם לאו מותר.


(R. Ami citing R. Yochanan): (Disagrees) It is permitted whichever order they fell. And even if water fell into wine and even if the permitted wine first fell in and was diluted fully (and then later the prohibited wine fell in), you ignore the permitted wine as if it is absent, and if the prohibited wine gives flavor, the mixture is prohibited.

אמר רבי זירא הדא למעלן איתאמרת (וכולה)[בכולה] תיניין היך עובידא


Question (R. Zeira): What is the wording (above) of R. Yochanan 'whichever order' (that we ignore the permitted wine) coming to include?

רבי יוסי בי רבי בון רבי אבהו בשם רבי יוחנן צלוחית [של] יין נסך שנפלה לחבית של (מים)[יין] ואח"כ נפלה לתוך בור של מים את רואה את ההיתר כמי שאינו והאיסור אם יש בו בנותן טעם אסור ואם לאו מותר:


Answer (R. Yosi bei R. Bun/ R. Abahu citing R. Yochanan): If a flask of Yayin Nesech fell into a barrel of wine which then fell into a vat of water, we ignore the permitted wine and if the prohibited wine is enough to give flavor, it is prohibited.


TERUMAH YEAST INTO DOUGH (Yerushalmi Halachah 11 Daf 36a)

[דף לו עמוד א] עד כדון בשנפלו זה אחר זה נפלו שנים כאחת


Question: (Continuing the discussion above (e) quoted from Maseches Orlah, about non-sacred and Terumah yeast falling to dough) we have learned that according to R. Eliezer, if they fell one after another, we follow the status of the latter yeast to fall in. What is his opinion about when they fell in at the same time?

נישמעינה מהדא מאימתי חמץ כותים מותר לאחר הפסח של בעלי בתים שלש שבתות של אפייה ושל נחתומין (בכרכים)[בכפרים] אחר שלשה ימים (בכפרים)[בכרכים] אחר שלשה תנורים.


Suggested answer (Tosefta in Pesachim): When is the Chametz (leaven) of Kusim (who are suspecting of owning Chametz on Pesach and using it afterwards) permitted after Pesach? (At what point after Pesach is there no longer a concern that one is buying Chametz that they owned on Pesach, thereby prohibiting its consumption?) Private home owner's Chametz may be bought three weeks of baking after Pesach. (Since they bake once a week and they use yeast (sour dough) from dough made earlier, it takes three weeks until the remnants of the yeast from Pesach are gone.) A baker's Chametz - in the villages (where they bake in relatively small quantities), it takes three days; in the cities, it takes three rounds of baking.

ר"ש בן אלעזר אומר אף כשאמרו של בעלי בתים אחר שלשה שבתות של אפייה (והוא שיהא)[אם היה] אדם גדול או שהיה משיא לבנו ואפה שלשה תנורין בשבת אחד זו אחר זו מותר אף כשאמרו של נחתומים בכפרין אחר שלשה ימים אם נדחק ואפה שלשה תנורין ביום אחד זה אחר זה מותר.


(R. Shimon ben Elazar): Even though they said that private home owner's Chametz may be bought three weeks (of baking) after Pesach, if he is an important person or he is marrying off his son, as soon as he did three rounds of baking on three consecutive days, his dough is permitted. And even though they said that a baker's Chametz may be bought in the villages after three days, if he was pressured and baked three rounds of baking in one day, the dough is permitted.

תני רבי שמעון אומר אף (כ)שאמרו של נחתומין (בכפרים][בכרכים] אחר שלשה תנורין אסור עד שלשה ימים שמשחרית בורר לו שאור לכל אותו היום


Beraisa (R. Shimon): Even though they said that in the cities, it takes three rounds of baking (even on the same day), it is actually prohibited until three days have passed - since in the morning he sets aside yeast for all baking that he will do that day, it comes out that all baking on any given day is in fact from the same yeast.

אותה העיסה השנייה לא מאיסור והיתר מתחמצת.


Question: But since he took the yeast for the second dough from that which leavened in the first dough (which contains a mixture of permitted and prohibited dough), it turns out that the second dough was leavened by both types of dough and it should be permitted?

אמר ר' ירמיה בשם ריש לקיש מאן תנא חמיצן של כותים רבי (לעזר)[ליעזר]


Answer (R. Yirmiyah citing Raish Lakish): The Tanna who authored the Tosefta of yeast of Kusim (above (b)) is R. Eliezer (who holds that even when the leavening comes from both types of dough, it is also prohibited. This answers our question above (a).)

אמר רבי יוסי לרבי חנינה ענתונייא נהירת דהויתן מרין את ורבי ירמיה בשם ריש לקיש מאן תנא חמצן של כותים רבי ליעזר וכאן לא הוינן מרין אלא רבי הילא בשם ריש לקיש ירדו לחמיצן של כותים כר' ליעזר


(R. Yosi to R. Chaninah Antonaya): I remember that both you and R. Yirmiyah said in the name of Reish Lakish that the Tosefta's author is R. Eliezer, but here, we do not say that. Rather, R. Hila said in the name of Reish Lakish that the Chachamim acted stringently with the Kusim to prohibit their dough for three bakings even if it became leavened through both types of dough, as is usually the opinion of R. Eliezer.

ועוד מהדא דמר ר' חנינה בר ר' אבהו אבא הוה ליה עובדא שלח שאל לרבי חייה (ולרבמי ולרבסי)[ולר' יסא ולר' אימי] והורון ליה כרבי ליעזר מה וכיחידאה מורין לא משום שירדו לחמיצן של כותים כרבי ליעזר.


Further support (R. Chaninah bar R. Abahu): My father was brought such a case (of Chametz of Kusim that they owned over Pesach) and he sent a message asking R. Chiyah, R. Yasa and R. Imi, who ruled that it is prohibited, like the opinion of R. Eliezer. And if there is also a dispute between R. Eliezer and Rabbanan there, how could the Rabbis rule like R. Eliezer (an individual) over the Rabbanan (who are the majority). Rather, it must be that even the Rabbanan agree to R. Eliezer in the case of Chametz of the Kusim.

אמר רבי מנא קומי רבי יוסי כמה דאת מר תמן הלכה כרבי ליעזר אוף הכא הלכה כרבי ליעזר


(R. Mana to R. Yosi): Just as you said that there (in the case of Kusim), the Halacha follows R. Eliezer, is that also true here (that even if there, when there is a mixture of Terumah and non-sacred yeast and there is not enough Terumah yeast to leaven it, it is prohibited)?

א"ל ולכל (דבה)[דבר]:


(R. Yosi to R. Mana): Do you think the Halachah follows him in all cases?! (Rather, only in the first case we follow him.)