Aligned sentence by sentence
[]
Mishnah [1]
▶Sources · 1
MT Hilkhot Maakhalot Asurot 11:1–7 preserves the two-tier distinction Rambam draws here between yayin nesekh (wine explicitly used in idolatrous libation, biblically forbidden with no permitted benefit) and stam yeinam (ordinary wine handled by an idolater, rabbinically forbidden for consumption but permitted for benefit in certain opinions). The Commentary is unusually expansive in justifying the rabbinic decree: Rambam stresses that stam yeinam was forbidden to prevent intermarriage, not because of libation concerns per se. MT 11:7 alludes to this rationale briefly but without the Commentary's sustained argument.
.
They said: it is a *kenas* — a penalty that the Sages imposed with respect to libation wine (*yayin nesekh*).
, , .
It is commonly understood that one who hires out an animal for riding also loads his own provisions onto it. It therefore stands to reason that the rider might consider the rental fee to include transportation of libation wine, and that the hire would thereby become forbidden. We are taught, however, that this is not so: the hire is permitted, since the terms of the rental made no explicit mention of transporting libation wine.
[]
Mishnah [2]
▶Sources · 1
The cases of wine found in the possession of an idolater versus wine that a Jew left with an idolater — and whether each is presumed to have been used for libation — are codified in MT 11:8–10. The Commentary explains the evidentiary logic: we assess whether the idolater had the means and motive to substitute libation wine. The MT translates this into formal presumptions without retaining the evidentiary reasoning. MT 11:10 adds a rule about wine in a shared courtyard not found in the Commentary.
, , .
The sense of the mishnah is as follows: if the [split] barleycorns were cracked open and the forbidden substance imparted a flavor that confers benefit (*noten ta'am*), they are forbidden; if it imparted no such flavor, they are permitted. And so too the incident involving Boethus b. Zonin, etc.
, , , , , . , .
The phrase "fell into the groats" — when the groats are hot, this is a case of *pogem mitehilah ve-'ad sof* (impairs from beginning to end), because the substance in question spoils the food throughout. The term the mishnah calls *yesh be-hana'ato be-noten ta'am* (there is benefit in its flavor) corresponds to what the Talmud calls *noten ta'am li-shevah* — that is, the admixture improves the food and makes it more agreeable. The phrase *yesh be-hana'ato be-noten ta'am* means, in effect, "there is benefit in its flavor." Conversely, *she-ein be-hana'ato be-noten ta'am* means that no benefit is gained when that flavor is present — which the Talmud terms *noten ta'am li-fegam*.
, , , , .
It is evident that this distinction applies only when two unlike substances intermix (*min be-she-eino mino*). Four cases arise in this regard: The **first case**: the admixture ruins the host substance — whether in its taste, its aroma, or both — immediately and permanently, that is, the spoilage does not disappear with the passage of time. This is called *pogem mitehilah ve-'ad sof*. An example is fat from meat or fish when it mingles with honey: it spoils it permanently.
, .
The **second case**: the admixture improves the host substance immediately and permanently — as when wine mixes into a meat or fish stew. This is called *mashbiah mitehilah ve-'ad sof*.
, , .
The **third case**: the admixture improves the flavor at first but, after some time, spoils it — as when fat from meat or suet mixes with clarified butter: it improves the flavor initially, but after several months it ruins both the taste and the aroma, producing rancidity. This is called *hishbiah u-le-vasof pagam*.
, , , , .
The **fourth case**: the admixture spoils the host substance at first, but after a long time improves it — as when honey mixes with wine: it dulls the wine's strength and ruins its taste initially, but over time the wine's potency asserts itself, and the honey then adds to the bouquet, clarity of color, and sharpness. All of this is an improvement for the wine. This is called *pogam me-'iqqaro*.
. , , , , .
As for the first case (*pogem mitehilah ve-'ad sof*), there is nothing to discuss: it is permitted across all categories of prohibited substances. As for the second case (*mashbiah mitehilah ve-'ad sof*), its prohibition likewise requires no discussion. The remaining two cases are not definitively resolved in the Talmud as to which is forbidden and which is permitted; therefore both are treated as forbidden. For this reason, we required that the groats be hot — for if they were cold, the admixture would improve their flavor immediately, and the vinegar would only spoil them later, when they are stirred and brought to a boil.
[]
Mishnah [3]
, , .
*Be-hezkat mishtamer* — in a presumptively guarded state: this means that the Jew tells the gentile, "Carry on, and I will accompany you," so that even if the Jew falls behind considerably, the gentile will not dare extend his hand to touch the barrel.
.
If, however, the gentile knows that the Jew has been delayed long enough to bore through the stopper at the mouth of the barrel, draw out the wine, and then reseal and dry the stopper — then it is *yayin nesekh*.
, , .
Rabban Simeon b. Gamliel is not concerned about *shetimat* (boring) and sets the relevant time as however long it would take to open the mouth of the barrel entirely, draw off the wine, and stopper the barrel again until the stopper is fully dry. This interval is longer than the one set by the *Tanna kamma*, because Rabban Simeon b. Gamliel holds that boring through and resealing the stopper is impossible without leaving a visible mark on the barrel's cover.
, , , .
The Sages do not disagree with Rabban Simeon b. Gamliel that if the barrel's stopper is made of clay, the relevant time is however long it would take to open, reseal, and let dry — because one cannot burrow through packed clay without betraying the interference by a change in the color of the soil. The dispute concerns only when the barrel's mouth is sealed with plaster, which can be bored through, is uniform in color, and dries quickly.
. .
The word *yeshtom* (bore) is derived from the expression *shetum ha-'ayin* (one who is blind in one eye). The law follows Rabban Simeon b. Gamliel.
[]
Mishnah [4]
, . .
*Qapandarya* — a shortcut: entering through one gate and exiting through the adjacent gate, as we have explained on other occasions. The mishnah envisions a case where a person entered the city gate to attend quickly to some business there while the others waited for his return, but he slipped out through another gate, passed through the city, did what he described, and was delayed.
, , . , .
The mishnah records the dispute regarding three distinct situations concerning the threshold of time for forbidden absence, since in each situation it is possible to argue either leniently or stringently: In the case of a road in the open country, one might argue that a detour through a winding path (*derekh 'aqalton*) is possible — and therefore the gentile fears discovery and will not pour a libation, even if he is delayed. Alternatively, one could argue the reverse: in open country, once the gentile loses sight of the Jew, he immediately pours a libation, whereas at sea — where a companion might spot him — he will say to himself, "My companion can see me," and will not pour a libation even if the delay is prolonged.
. , .
Similarly in a shop (*hanuto*): one might argue that the gentile can bolt the door and do as he wishes, so the wine becomes *nesekh* in less than the standard time; or, conversely, that at sea, where a companion might see him from mid-water, the critical interval is what we stated, whereas in a shop, even if the delay is longer, no *nesekh* results — because the gentile fears his companion's arrival and cannot move the entire shop.
, . .
You should therefore know that the Sages set the relevant interval uniformly across all three cases, and so too does Rabban Simeon b. Gamliel. The law follows Rabban Simeon b. Gamliel in all matters.
[]
Mishnah [5]
, , .
*Dulpeqi* — this is a side-table, lower than the main table, on which dishes of food and wine are placed and from which they are taken and transferred to the main table. A guest cannot reach out to take something from the *dulpeqi* on his own; rather, the host places things on the table from it.
, . .
The phrase "open barrels are forbidden" refers to barrels left in the house he departed from. This ruling is stated straightforwardly in accordance with the position of Rabban Simeon b. Gamliel.
[]
Mishnah [6]
, . , , .
*Balshet* — the army that enters a city to plunder it. The phrase "extended its hand over the people's property" — the Targum renders (Gen 31:35) "and he searched" as *u-valash*, which is why such troops are called *balshet*: because they *balash* (search through) and *bahath* (examine) people's belongings.
[]
Mishnah [7]
. . . .
You already know that the foundational principle for *yayin nesekh* is that it is forbidden as to benefit (*asur be-hana'ah*) and may not be sold. One of our principles is also that *meshikhah* performed by a gentile [to acquire ownership] is like meshikhah performed by a Jew. We have previously enumerated the ways in which wine in a gentile's hands becomes *nesekh*. We have also explained in the first chapter of Qiddushin and the fifth chapter of Bava Batra the laws of *meshikhah*.
, , , .
On this basis: when wine came into a gentile's possession and he acquired it while it had not yet been rendered *nesekh*, and subsequently it reverted to *yayin nesekh* status — the proceeds of its sale are permitted. But if it came into his possession already as *yayin nesekh* — such as when the Jew measured wine directly into the gentile's hand — then its proceeds are forbidden. This is all the more so if it became *nesekh* before he had acquired it.
, .
Once they agreed on the price, the Jew's mind was settled. When the Jew measured the wine out with a Jewish vessel and the vessel passed into the gentile's possession, the gentile acquired it by *meshikhah* and the Jew became entitled to the purchase price. The wine does not become *nesekh* until the gentile physically touches it afterward.
, , , .
But if the Jew measured it out before finalizing the price, even if he advanced a portion of the payment, the Jew's mind is not settled and the transaction is not valid until they finalize the price and the Jew receives the remainder of the payment — by which point the wine may have already become *nesekh* from the contact. What the mishnah tells us here is precisely this point: that even if the gentile performed *meshikhah*, if the price was not yet finalized, the Jew's mind is not settled, no valid acquisition has occurred, and the wine will have become *nesekh* first. But once the price has been finalized and payment received, even if the wine was measured entirely into the gentile's hands, the proceeds are permitted.
.
If the gentile had no cash on hand and the Jewish seller extended a loan to him, and then the gentile returned those exact same coins as payment for the purchase — that is permitted.
, . , .
*'Iqvat yayin* — a residual moisture of pure wine left in the funnel. *Ha-me'areh mi-kli le-kli* — when a Jew pours from his own vessel into a vessel that is in a gentile's hand.
, . , .
The same law applies to the gentile's own vessel if it contains *yayin nesekh* — even if it is on the floor — and to the stream of liquid connecting the two vessels at the moment of pouring, which is called *nisoq*, which is forbidden. By the same reasoning, the wine in the upper vessel becomes forbidden on account of this *nisoq*, since we treat the stream as a connection for purposes of *yayin nesekh*.
, , , , , .
For this reason the Sages specified that the manner of pouring be as I will describe: one pours, then lifts his hand before the stream that was poured reaches the lower vessel; then pours again in the same fashion; or pours in a manner like one who rakes (*ke-man de-rash be-marsh*) — which is the instruction to the wine-seller: "Cut the flow in short bursts" (*qetofu qetofi*) or "scatter it in drops" (*nafitzu nafitzi*). Pouring in this manner, the pouring from one vessel into another is permitted.
[]
Mishnah [8]
▶Sources · 1
The prohibition on deriving any benefit from yayin nesekh (as opposed to stam yeinam, from which benefit is permitted under certain conditions) is codified in MT Hilkhot Maakhalot Asurot 12:1. The Commentary's analysis here focuses on what counts as 'benefit' — may one use the wine as a solvent, a dye, or fuel? The MT resolves this at 12:3 by adopting a comprehensive definition: any economic use whatsoever is forbidden, not only consumption.
, .
It should not seem far-fetched to you that water could be forbidden — for example, if it had been offered to an idol, or if that water had itself been worshipped.
.
The definitive ruling regarding *yayin nesekh* specifically — that is, wine actually poured as a libation to idolatry — which imparts severe ritual impurity (*tum'ah hamurah*) at the volume of an olive (*ke-zayit*): it forbids its own category (*min be-mino*) at any quantity whatsoever (*be-khol she-hu*), whether the forbidden falls into the permitted or the permitted into the forbidden.
, .
This holds provided the vessel has a wide enough mouth that the liquid flowing from it is of substantial volume. But if *yayin nesekh* fell drop by drop into a large quantity of permitted wine, it does not render it forbidden.
.
If, however, permitted wine was poured onto even a tiny amount of *yayin nesekh* — even an olive's-weight of *yayin nesekh* poured into a shipful of wine renders the whole forbidden as to benefit.
. . , .
The definitive and unambiguous ruling that is the governing principle throughout is: all substances forbidden by the Torah, whether with their own kind (*min be-mino*) or with another kind (*she-lo be-mino*), become forbidden through *noten ta'am* — except for *tevel* and *yayin nesekh*. As for *yayin nesekh*, it is as we stated: with its own kind, any quantity at all forbids, in accordance with the severe prohibition of idolatry — "and nothing of the devoted thing shall cleave to your hand" (Deut 13:18). As for *tevel* — it is analogous to *terumah*: just as one grain of wheat exempts the entire heap (*keri*) from the obligation of tithing, so too does one grain of wheat render the entire heap *tevel*.
, .
When a dissimilar substance admixes with another category of forbidden substances (*min be-she-eino mino*), and we are able to taste the mixture — as in the case of *terumah* mixed with *hullin* — we taste it: if it imparts a flavor and that flavor is not spoiling (*pogem*), as we explained, the mixture is forbidden.
. .
When it is not permissible to taste the mixture — as with meat-and-milk or *yayin nesekh* mixed into food — we give it to a gentile to taste and rely on his assessment. If no gentile is available, or if it is a same-kind mixture (*min be-mino*) in which no flavor can be detected — such as *terumah* wine, *orlah* wine, or *kil'ayim* wine mixed into *hullin* wine — we apply the fixed measures.
, , , . , .
*Terumah*, *tithes of tithes* (*terumat ma'aser*), *hallah*, and *first-fruits* (*bikkurim*) are nullified at one-in-a-hundred; *orlah* and *kil'ei ha-kerem* at one-in-two-hundred; and all other forbidden substances — forbidden fats (*helev*), blood, *nevelah*, *trefah*, *sheqatsim*, and *remashim* and the like — at one-in-sixty, as is clarified in the chapter of the sinew of the thigh (*gid ha-nasheh*) in tractate Hullin (BT Hullin 98a), where it states: the case of the same-kind mixture in which a flavor cannot be detected, as in fat from the sciatic-nerve sinew; or the unlike-kind mixture in the absence of a gentile cook (*qapilah aramah*) to taste — [both are nullified] at one-in-sixty. And just as a same-kind mixture is measured at sixty when that is the applicable ratio, so too are applicable ratios of one-in-a-hundred and one-in-two-hundred applied consistently.
, . , . .
What we said in the context of the Sabbatical Year (*shemittah*) — that the Sages rule that *shemittah* produce forbids at any quantity within its own kind, as is explained in the seventh chapter of tractate *Shevi'it* — does not conflict with these principles. This is because the prohibition is not against *eating* it, but rather that it must be eaten with the holiness appropriate to *shemittah*. The weight of the matter, therefore, is that there is no prohibition of eating; rather, one eats it as one eats during the Sabbatical Year, as is clarified there. The expression "it forbids" (*osereth*) was applied to it loosely, by analogy to a genuinely prohibited thing.
, , .
So bear this meaning in mind and extract the summary from it. For many great authorities (*Geonim*) have stumbled over these principles, not knowing whether they all reduce to a single principle or whether some contradict others, and which principle governs in practice. In fact, everything proceeds from a single coherent set of principles, as I have shown you.
[]
Mishnah [9]
. .
You have already seen in the third chapter of tractate *Orlah* the opinion of R. Meir — that he holds [a forbidden object that falls into a group] *she-darko li-mnot meqadesh* (whose normal practice is individual counting sanctifies the whole). This Tanna holds that when two features converge in a single forbidden substance — (a) that it is normally counted as a discrete item, and (b) that it is forbidden as to benefit (*asur be-hana'ah*) — then it forbids at any quantity (*be-khol she-hu*).
, . , , , , , , .
His ruling, *yayin nesekh*, means: if a jug of *yayin nesekh* is mixed into any number of jugs of permitted wine, the whole is forbidden as to benefit — because both features converge. Similarly: a coin of idolatry mixed into other coins; a hide among other hides; an ox among oxen; a calf among calves; a bird among birds; a lock of a Nazirite's hair among other locks of hair; a firstborn donkey (*peter hamor*) among donkeys.
, , .
A piece of bread cooked with milk or from *hullin* animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard, mixed among other bread pieces — in all such cases the entire group is forbidden as to benefit. For a stoned ox (*shor ha-nisqal*), a neck-broken heifer (*eglah arufah*), and a firstborn donkey — the entire group is put to death.
, . . , , .
We already explained in the second chapter of Qiddushin that all of these are forbidden as to benefit (*asurin be-hana'ah*) and provided the scriptural basis for each, and that they are all *davar she-darko li-mnot*. The mishnah's repetition, "behold these are forbidden and forbid at any quantity," serves to exclude an item counted by number but not forbidden as to benefit — such as a piece of *nevelah* among bread pieces; or an item forbidden as to benefit but not normally counted — such as *kil'ayim* flour or wine mixed with *hullin* flour or wine.
, , .
However, there is an inconsistency in this principle. For the ruling regarding a jug of *yayin nesekh* that we have definitively established as having been poured as a libation to idolatry — when mixed among jugs of permitted wine — is that one sells the entire lot to gentiles and takes as proceeds only the value of that one jug, casting that sum into the Salt Sea. This corresponds to the phrase "he takes the *hana'ah* to the Salt Sea" that appeared earlier in chapter three of this tractate.
, , .
Moreover, not every item that is normally counted and is forbidden as to benefit is necessarily *meqadesh* — that is, forbids at any quantity — since *orlah* and *kil'ei ha-kerem* are forbidden as to benefit and yet only seven specific items among them are *meqadesh*, that is, they forbid at any quantity as I explained at the end of tractate *Orlah*.
, , .
Know also that what is stated in this ruling — that they forbid at any quantity — is correct for all cases *except* for *yayin nesekh*. For *yayin nesekh* forbids at any quantity only with respect to *drinking*; but when a jug falls among jugs, it does not make the whole forbidden as to benefit, as we explained.
, . , .
As for *hamets* on Passover — it is a special case: whether same-kind or unlike-kind, any quantity at all (*be-mashe-hu*) [renders things forbidden]. The reason it departs from the general rule governing all Biblically forbidden substances is that it applies only within a bounded time — its prohibition is not permanent by nature, unlike all other Biblical prohibitions discussed above, but is bound to a specific period; when the time passes, the prohibition lapses. For this reason the Talmud did not apply to it the same conditions it applied to *yayin nesekh* and *tevel*, as we noted above. Absorb all these points carefully and distinguish among them, and the master-principle for all of them will become clear to you.
[]
Mishnah [10]
, .
It has already been established for you that *yayin nesekh* — wine poured as a libation to idolatry — forbids any quantity of its own kind, and that one jug among jugs [of permitted wine requires that] the *hana'ah* be taken to the Salt Sea.
, .
The cistern (*bor*) mentioned here is a cistern of wine. If it is *stam yeinam* — wine of idolaters whose libation status is unknown — that fell into such a cistern, the ruling follows Rabban Simeon b. Gamliel, with the added qualification that *stam yeinam* is also forbidden as to benefit.
, , , .
As the Sages said: there are three categories of wine — *yayin nesekh*, which is forbidden as to benefit and imparts severe ritual impurity (*tum'ah hamurah*) at the volume of an olive; *stam yeinam*, which is forbidden as to benefit and imparts the impurity of liquids (*tum'at mashqin*) at a quarter-log (*revi'it*); and wine left in a gentile's custody, which is forbidden for drinking but permitted as to benefit.
. , . .
*Tum'ah hamurah* means it makes a person and vessels impure through contact and carrying, like a corpse (*nevelah*). *Tum'at mashqin* is a lighter impurity that makes food and liquids impure only; and if a person drinks a *revi'it* of it, his body becomes *pesulah* (disqualified) though he does not become ritually impure. The laws governing these categories of impurity will be clarified in their proper places.
[]
Mishnah [11]
▶Sources · 1
The question of whether libation wine can be nullified by mixture with kosher wine (bittul be-rov) is the subject of MT Hilkhot Maakhalot Asurot 13:1–3. The Commentary rules against nullification for yayin nesekh — unlike ordinary forbidden foods, libation wine cannot become batel be-shishim or batel be-rov because it is qualitatively significant (davar she-yesh lo matirin). MT 13:1 codifies this rule and extends it: even in a majority mixture, if even a drop of libation wine is identifiable, the entire barrel is forbidden.
. .
When a gentile treads the grapes, there is no escaping the need to tighten [the barrel stopper] even if the barrel is made of stone. The law does not follow Rabbi [Yehudah ha-Nasi's minority view here].
[]
Mishnah [12]
, , . , . .
*Kelei tashmish* — vessels used for eating. The condition is that these vessels must be of cast metal (*melted materials*) such as iron and glass — and similarly glazed pottery — all of which are purifiable even if they are new. The phrase *le-hag'il* means to draw out the absorbed *ge'ule goyim* (absorbed gentile matter) by boiling the vessel vigorously in water. If it is a large vessel, one packs clay or dough around its rim so that the water rises above the lip, and then boils it vigorously.
, , , , .
*Kelim she-darkhan le-hag'il* — vessels that require *hag'alah*, such as copper pots, pans, and the like — or vessels that require *libun* (firing), such as spits and metal grills on which things are roasted and the like: the prohibition of *ge'ule goyim* is lifted from them after *hag'alah* for those that require *hag'alah*, and after *libun* (firing) for those that require *libun*. After that, immersion (*tevilah*) in forty *se'ah* [of water in a mikveh] purifies them for purposes of both the forbidden and the permitted, in addition to removing any impurity of *tum'ah* (ritual impurity).
, , . , . .
*Ha-sakkin* — sharpening: the condition is that the blade be flat and even; one then thrusts it into hard ground ten times, turning it each time. This is the meaning of *shafah* (sharpening). If one grinds it or heats it in fire, that is even more effective. However, for the removal of gentile *tum'ah* (*tum'at goyim*), immersion in a valid mikveh is still required — only then is the gentile's impurity removed. Bear this in mind.