Avodah Zarah

MISHNAH. YEN NESEK IS PROHIBITED AND RENDERS [OTHER WINE] PROHIBITED BY THE SMALLEST QUANTITY. WINE [MIXED] WITH WINE AND WATER WITH WATER  [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,  even the whole day long, the former is all the while annulled.  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. 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]  IMPARTS A FLAVOUR!  — 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 cooler  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 considerable  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.  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.  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,