A first approach to Siman 126: the 7 seifim of the Mehaber and the glosses of the Rama, Hebrew text and fluent English translation. The two preceding simanim spoke of contact and of force; this one speaks of a connection. Permitted wine runs down into forbidden wine, and between the two there stands, for an instant, an unbroken column of liquid: does it make the two wines one? That is the whole question of נצוק — and with it, the question of what the stringency costs.
Subject: Mixture with yayin nesekh and the law of nitzok — נצוק חבור, קיטוף, נצוק בר נצוק, הפסד מרובה, ביטול בששים Source: שולחן ערוך יורה דעה סימן קכ״ו
Compiled by: הרב יוסף חיים סממה DAAT · daattorah.com
📑 Plan of study
1.The text of the Mehaber: the 7 seifim, by thematic groups
4.The summary table: what connects, what does not, and at what price
5.The Taz and the Shach: five key passages
6.The gloss of the Rama (הגה): the four interventions
7.Practical cases today: the glass, the pump, the bottling line
8.Synthesis and comprehension questions
1. The text of the Mehaber — the 7 seifim
Siman 125 measured a force; siman 126 measures a connection. The case is always the same: permitted wine being poured, forbidden wine waiting below, and between them an unbroken column of liquid. If that column is a connection, the prohibition travels up and takes the entire upper vessel; if it is not, only what has fallen is lost. The seven seifim do nothing else: they state the rule (seif 1), they say what it costs and how far one pays (seif 2), they bound it (seifim 3 to 5), and then they move from connection to mixture proper and to its nullification in sixty (seifim 6 and 7). The Rama intervenes in four seifim — 2, 5, 6 and 7.
Group A — Nitzok: the rule, its price, its first limit (seifim 1-3)
Seif 1 — The column of wine that connects, and the gesture that cuts it
דין יין שנתערב ביין נסך ודין נצוק חבור. ובו ז׳ סעיפים: המערה יין לתוך כלי שיש בו יין עובד כוכבים האסור בהנאה נאסר כל היין שבכלי העליון שהרי העמוד הנצוק מחבר בין היין שבכלי העליון ובין היין שבכלי התחתון ורואים כאילו יין של האיסור מעורב בשל היתר ואם עירה וקיטף שקודם שנגע בשל האיסור הפסיק קלוח היורד מהיין של היתר מותר:
Title of the siman: the laws of wine that became mixed with yayin nesekh, and the law that nitzok is a connection; seven seifim. — One who pours wine into a vessel containing a non-Jew’s wine that is forbidden in benefit: all the wine in the upper vessel becomes forbidden, for the column of the nitzok connects the wine in the upper vessel with the wine in the lower vessel, and we view it as though the forbidden wine were mixed into the permitted one. And if he poured and cut off — that is, before it reached the forbidden wine he interrupted the stream descending from the permitted wine — it is permitted.
Three expressions carry the whole seif. First העמוד הנצוק, the column of the nitzok: it is not the wine below that rises, it is the stream that makes the two bodies one — ורואים כאילו יין של האיסור מעורב בשל היתר. Then האסור בהנאה: the Mehaber added these words to the Rambam’s language, and the Shach explains why — nitzok operates only against wine forbidden in benefit, not against wine forbidden only to drink (see section 5). Finally וקיטף: cut the stream before it reaches the forbidden wine, and there is no connection at all. The remedy is as old as the rule — the Gemara already recommended it to wine merchants (see section 2).
Seif 2 — The price of stringency: a small loss and a substantial loss
הא דנצוק חבור ה״מ בהפסד מועט אבל בהפסד מרובה כגון שהוציא מהחבית לכלי שיש בו יין נסך מותר: הגה ואין חילוק בין אם היה הרבה יין בחבית או לא ואפי׳ יכול למכרו לעובד כוכבים וכל מה שהוא בקנקן או בכוס מקרי הפסד מועט ודוקא ביין נסך אבל בשאר איסורים אם יכול למכרו לעובד כוכבים ואין בו הפסד מרובה לא מיקרי הפסד מרובה(מסקנת ת״ה סימן ר״ד):
That which was said — that nitzok is a connection — applies only where the loss is small; but where the loss is substantial, for instance where he drew from the barrel into a vessel containing yayin nesekh — it is permitted. Gloss of the Rama:and there is no difference whether there was much wine in the barrel or not; and even if he can sell it to a non-Jew; and anything that is in a jug or in a cup is called a small loss. And this applies specifically to yayin nesekh; but with other prohibitions, if he can sell it to a non-Jew and there is no substantial loss in it, that is not called a substantial loss.
The most practical seif in the siman, and the most surprising. The rule of nitzok is not paid for at any price: it holds where the loss is small and yields where the loss is substantial — for Rabbeinu Tam holds that nitzok is no connection at all, and where the loss is substantial, says the Shach, we rely on the decisors who permit (see section 5). The Rama then sets the scale in three strokes: the amount of wine left in the barrel makes no difference; a jug or a cup is always a small loss; and having to sell the goods cheaply to a non-Jew counts, here, as a substantial loss. This last leniency belongs to yayin nesekh alone: with other prohibitions the very same situation is not called a substantial loss.
Seif 3 — נצוק בר נצוק: the connection does not pass to a third vessel
נצוק בר נצוק אינו חבור:
A nitzok that comes from a nitzok is not a connection.
A limit of extreme brevity: four words. The connection of the nitzok is one of adjacency, not a contagion that spreads from vessel to vessel. The Taz supplies the textbook case (see section 5): the Jew pours from his vessel into the non-Jew’s flask, and what remains in his vessel is forbidden by nitzok; if he then pours from a second vessel into the first, that second one remains permitted — its stream touches only wine forbidden by nitzok, not the forbidden wine itself. A nitzok does not beget a nitzok.
Group B — Where the stream does not connect (seifim 4-5)
Seif 4 — Pouring onto mud: this is no manner of libation
אם העובד כוכבים מערה יין מכלי לטיט או לאשפה או למקום לכלוך אין דרך נסוך בכך והכל מותר בין מה שיצא לחוץ בין מה שבפנים אבל אם היה ישראל או עובד כוכבים מערה לטיט או לאשפה ובא עובד כוכבים ונגע בקלוח הכל אסור:
If the non-Jew pours wine from a vessel onto mud, or onto a refuse heap, or onto a filthy place — that is no manner of libation, and everything is permitted, both what went out and what is inside. But if a Jew or a non-Jew was pouring onto mud or onto refuse, and a non-Jew came and touched the stream — everything is forbidden.
The seif leaves the mechanics of the stream for the question of intent, and the criterion of siman 125 returns: אין דרך נסוך בכך — one does not offer a libation onto a refuse heap. The point is crucial, and the Taz states it: what permits is not the fact that the wine is destroyed, it is the filthy place; pouring on the ground, anywhere but in a place of filth, remains a manner of libation, for they too sprinkle wine on the ground before their idol (see section 5). The second half of the seif closes the door: if a non-Jew comes and touches the stream, the question is no longer the wine being discarded but contact — and everything is forbidden.
Seif 5 — The unrinsed vessel: when there is no wine below
המערה יין לתוך כלי של עובד כוכבים שלא הודח ואין בו משקה טופח את שעירה בו אסור בשתייה ואת שעירה ממנו מותר אפי׳ בשתייה. הגה ואם יש בו כדי להטפיח אסור בנצוק(בית יוסף בשם ר׳ ירוחם וסמ״ג ותוס׳ ורא״ש פרק בתרא דעבודת כוכבים)מיהו אינו אוסר יותר מאילו היה מעורב בו ואם הוא סתם יינם בטל בס׳ כמו שיתבאר בסימן קל״ד:
One who pours wine into a non-Jew’s vessel that was not rinsed and in which there is no liquid that wets: that which he poured into it is forbidden to drink, and that from which he poured is permitted, even to drink. Gloss of the Rama:and if there is enough in it to wet, it is forbidden by nitzok; however it does not forbid more than if [the wine] had been mixed into it, and if it is stam yeinam it is nullified in sixty, as will be explained in siman 134.
The decisive case for understanding what nitzok really is. Below there is no wine: only an unrinsed vessel whose walls do not even carry משקה טופח, a residue of liquid that wets. There is therefore nothing for the stream to connect to: what remains above is permitted, even to drink; only what went down takes on the vessel’s prohibition. The Shach draws the general formula from this — they said that nitzok is a connection only where one pours into yayin nesekh that is forbidden in benefit (see section 5). The Rama adds the opposite threshold: as soon as there is enough to wet, the connection returns — but it weighs no more than an ordinary mixture, and stam yeinam is then nullified in sixty.
Group C — From connection to mixture: nullification in sixty (seifim 6-7)
Seif 6 — The pitcher of water: nullifying in sixty in advance
קנקן יין שיש בו קיתון של מים ועירה ממנו לתוך צלוחית שיש בו יין של עובד כוכבים אם יש במים של קנקן לבטל היין שבצלוחית מותר ושיעור הביטול היינו שיהיה במים ס׳ כנגדו. (ד״ע)(וע״ל סימן קל״ד סעיף ה׳ :
A jug of wine in which there is a pitcher of water, and he poured from it into a flask containing a non-Jew’s wine: if the water of the jug is enough to nullify the wine in the flask — it is permitted. And the measure of nullification is that there be in the water sixty against it.Gloss of the Rama:(his own view)(and see further on, siman 134 seif 5 :
Here the siman changes register: we no longer ask whether the stream connects, we prepare the nullification in advance. A jug of wine into which water has been put — and it is that water, not the wine, that will nullify the forbidden wine in the flask, since wine does not nullify wine, being of its own kind. The Taz says so in a line and draws the consequence for our own time: since we rule in siman 134 that stam yeinam is nullified, the water becomes unnecessary (ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ו ס״ק ז). There remains the measure: our text says sixty, and the Shach notes that siman 134 says six parts — a divergence he leaves open with a צ״ע (see section 5). Note finally that the Rama’s closing parenthesis is, in the Sefaria text, opened and never closed: we reproduce it as it stands.
Seif 7 — The winepress: sixty against the descending stream
גת שהיין יורד ממנו לבור ונגע עובד כוכבים בקלוח היורד אם יש בחרצנים וזגים וענבים שבגת ששים כנגד הקילוח לא נאסר מה שבגת: הגה דאמרינן סלק את מינו כאילו אינו ושאינו מינו רבה עליו ומבטלו. שמרי יין שלא נתמדו ולא עברו עליהם י״ב חדש מקרי מין במינו עם יין.(ב״י בשם תשובת הרשב״א):
A winepress whose wine descends from it into the pit, and a non-Jew touched the descending stream: if the grape-seeds, the skins and the grapes in the press amount to sixty against the stream — what is in the press is not forbidden. Gloss of the Rama:for we say: set aside what is of its own kind as though it were not there, and what is not of its kind exceeds it and nullifies it. Wine lees from which no piquette has been made and over which twelve months have not passed are considered to be of the same kind as wine.
The last seif applies the same arithmetic to the winepress — and one must see what is being counted. The non-Jew touched the stream descending to the pit: that stream is forbidden, and the question is whether the mass left in the press nullifies it. But one does not count the wine: wine is of its own kind and does not nullify. One counts the seeds, the skins and the grapes, which are not wine — that is the sense of the Rama’s gloss, סלק את מינו כאילו אינו. The Rama’s second sentence draws a fine line: lees that are still young count as wine. The Shach finds this construction difficult for anyone who holds, in siman 134, that stam yeinam is nullified in sixty — that is the subject of his long note 13 (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ו ס״ק י״ג).
2. Context — where the rule of נִצּוֹק comes from
The word נצוק denotes the continuous jet of a liquid being poured: the column that, for as long as one pours, joins the mouth of the upper vessel to the surface of the lower liquid. The Gemara raises the question at the end of tractate Avoda Zara — and raises it several times, without ever formally settling it.
קיטוף — cutting off. If the stream is broken before it reaches the wine below, there is no column, and therefore no connection. This was no academic subtlety: Rav Chisda recommended it to the merchants who measured out wine for non-Jews.
The sugya closes without a decision, and it is the division among the Rishonim that makes our siman. The Tur sums it up in two steps:
הניצוק פסק רש״י דהוי חיבור וכן דעת רב אלפס
— טור יורה דעה סימן קכ״ו
and then:
ור״ת פסק דניצוק לא הוה חיבור ומסקנת א״א הרא״ש ז״ל כרש״י והר״ם מרוטנבורק היה נוהג על פי גדולי צרפת דבהפסד מרובה היה מתיר ניצוק כגון אם הוציא מן החבית לכלי שיש בו יין נסך אבל לא בדבר מועט.
— טור יורה דעה סימן קכ״ו
There are the three positions on which the first two seifim live: Rashi and the Rif — nitzok is a connection; Rabbeinu Tam — it is not; the Maharam of Rothenburg — it is, except where the loss is substantial. The Mehaber rules like Rashi in seif 1 and adopts the compromise in seif 2. His formulation in seif 1 is the Rambam’s, almost word for word:
Here is the remedy in its most concrete form — ינפץ נפיצה או יזרוק זריקה, let him give a shake or pour with a thrown jet, so that there be no nitzok. And here above all one sees what the Mehaber added to the Rambam: the words האסור בהנאה, with which the Shach opens his commentary (section 5).
The great questions of the siman
What is a nitzok? Not a mixture, not a contact: a column of liquid joining two bodies for as long as one pours. The whole question is whether that joint counts as a union.
Against which wine does it operate? Against wine forbidden in benefit, as seif 1 says with the words האסור בהנאה. Against wine forbidden only to drink, it does not operate (seif 5, and Shach notes 1 and 9).
What does it cost? That is the proper question of seif 2: the stringency of nitzok is paid for so long as the loss is small, and yields before a substantial loss, because great Rishonim do not accept it.
Where does it stop? At one remove (seif 3), at the absence of wine below (seif 5), at the absence of any manner of libation (seif 4) — and, when it does apply, at nullification in sixty (seifim 5 to 7).
This siman deals neither with the non-Jew’s contact with wine (siman 124), nor with what his force sets in motion (siman 125). It deals with what happens when two wines meet: through a stream that joins them for an instant, or through a genuine mixture. And concerning that stream it asks the question that governs the whole block: is such a connection a mixture?
3. The key concepts of this siman
נִצּוֹק — the connecting stream. The continuous jet of liquid descending from the upper vessel to the lower one. The question of tractate Avoda Zara — נִצּוֹק חִיבּוּר — is whether it makes the two liquids one. The Mehaber rules that it does.
עַמּוּד הַנִּצּוֹק — the column of the nitzok. The image of seif 1, taken from the Rambam: the stream is not an accessory of the pouring, it is a body, a column standing between the two vessels. It is because it is a body that it can connect.
קִטּוּף — cutting the stream. Breaking the jet before it reaches the lower liquid, so that there is never a continuous column. The Rambam gives the practical variant: יְנַפֵּץ נְפִיצָה אוֹ יִזְרֹק זְרִיקָה, a shake or a thrown jet. This is the siman’s universal remedy.
נִצּוֹק בַּר נִצּוֹק — a nitzok born of a nitzok. Wine that became forbidden through nitzok does not in turn transmit the prohibition through a fresh nitzok. The connection does not spread from vessel to vessel: that is seif 3, four words that bound the whole siman.
הֶפְסֵד מוּעָט · הֶפְסֵד מְרֻבֶּה — a small loss, a substantial loss. The axis of seif 2. The stringency of nitzok is not a certainty but one position among others: it is held so long as it is not costly, and one relies on those who permit when it is. The Rama fixes the threshold: a jug, a cup — a small loss.
מַשְׁקֶה טוֹפֵחַ · כְּדֵי לְהַטְפִּיחַ — liquid that wets. The threshold of seif 5: a vessel merely unrinsed, dry to the touch, has nothing for the stream to connect to; if enough liquid remains to wet the hand, nitzok resumes its force. A minimal quantity decides the very existence of the connection.
אֵין דֶּרֶךְ נִסּוּךְ בְּכָךְ — this is no manner of libation. The criterion of seif 4, inherited from siman 125: what is thrown into mud or onto refuse is offered to no one. The Taz at once marks the limit: on bare ground, anywhere but in a place of filth, it is a manner of libation.
סַלֵּק אֶת מִינוֹ כְּאִילּוּ אֵינוֹ — set aside what is of its own kind. The rule of nullification in seif 7: in a mixture, whatever is of the same kind as the forbidden substance does not nullify it and is not counted; only what is of another kind — here the seeds, the skins, the grapes — enters the reckoning of sixty.
בִּטּוּל בְּשִׁשִּׁים — nullification in sixty. The siman’s ordinary way out: where the connection exists, it weighs no more than a mixture (Rama, seif 5), so whatever nullifies a mixture nullifies it too. The Shach notes, however, that siman 134 speaks of six parts rather than sixty — see section 5.
4. The summary table — what connects, and at what price
The siman reads along three intersecting axes: is there a connection, what does the stringency cost, and does the prohibition fall on drinking or also on benefit. Here are the seven seifim laid flat.
המקרה
Situation
Ruling
Seif
המערה לתוך יין האסור בהנאה
He pours into a non-Jew’s wine forbidden in benefit
נאסר כל היין שבכלי העליון — the nitzok connects
1
עירה וקיטף
He cuts the stream before it reaches the wine below
מותר — no column, no connection
1
הפסד מועט
A small loss (a jug, a cup)
נצוק חבור — the stringency holds
2
הפסד מרובה
A substantial loss (from the barrel into a vessel of yayin nesekh)
מותר — we rely on those who permit
2
יכול למכרו לעובד כוכבים
He can still sell it to a non-Jew, cheaply
Rama: still a substantial loss, for yayin nesekh alone
2 (Rama)
שאר איסורים
Other prohibitions, in the same situation
לא מיקרי הפסד מרובה
2 (Rama)
נצוק בר נצוק
A nitzok born of a nitzok
אינו חבור — the connection does not spread
3
מערה לטיט או לאשפה
The non-Jew pours onto mud, refuse, a filthy place
הכל מותר — outside as well as inside
4
בא עובד כוכבים ונגע בקלוח
A non-Jew comes and touches the stream being discarded
הכל אסור
4
כלי שלא הודח · אין בו משקה טופח
A non-Jew’s vessel, unrinsed, with no liquid that wets
What descends: אסור בשתייה · what remains: מותר אפי׳ בשתייה
5
יש בו כדי להטפיח
Enough remains to wet
Rama: אסור בנצוק, but no more than a mixture
5 (Rama)
סתם יינם
The wine below is stam yeinam
Rama: בטל בס׳, as in siman 134
5 (Rama)
קנקן שיש בו קיתון של מים
A jug of wine into which water has been put
מותר if the water makes ס׳ כנגדו
6
גת · נגע בקלוח היורד
He touches the stream descending from the press to the pit
לא נאסר מה שבגת if there is sixty
7
חרצנים וזגים וענבים
What is counted toward the sixty
Not the wine — סלק את מינו כאילו אינו
7 (Rama)
שמרי יין · י״ב חדש
Wine lees that are still young
מין במינו עם יין — they are not counted
7 (Rama)
Read from top to bottom, the middle column says something simple: nitzok forbids broadly, but it yields easily. It yields to a gesture (the cut stream), to one remove of distance (nitzok bar nitzok), to the absence of wine below, to the absence of any manner of libation, to cost — and, when it holds nonetheless, to the arithmetic of sixty. That is the physiognomy of a stringency whose own adherents know it to be disputed.
5. The Taz and the Shach — five key passages
The two great commentaries printed around the Shulchan Aruch of Yoreh De’ah are the Taz (Turei Zahav, Rabbi David haLevi Segal, 1586-1667) and the Shach (Siftei Kohen, Rabbi Shabtai haCohen, 1621-1662). On this siman they do three things: they say against which wine nitzok operates, they loosen the stringency of seif 2, and they point out a textual divergence no one had resolved.
Two key passages from the Taz
Taz note 3 — the textbook case of nitzok bar nitzok
כגון שיצק הישראל מהכלי לצלוחית שבתוכו יין של עובד כוכבים ואח״כ חזר ושפך מכלי אחר לאותו כלי ששפך תחלה ממנו שהיין הנשאר באותו כלי אחר הוא מותר
— ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ו ס״ק ג
For example: the Jew poured from his vessel into a flask containing a non-Jew’s wine, and then poured again, from another vessel, into that vessel from which he had first poured — the wine left in that other vessel is permitted.
Without this example, seif 3 remains a formula. With it, one sees the topography: three vessels, two pourings, one connection. The first vessel is caught because its stream touched the forbidden wine; the second is not, because its stream touched only wine forbidden by nitzok. The connection does not copy itself.
Taz note 4 — bare ground is not a filthy place
אבל שלא במקום לכלוך הוי דרך ניסוך שאף הם מזלפים על הקרקע לפני עבודת כוכבים שלהם
— ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ו ס״ק ד
But anywhere other than a filthy place, this is a manner of libation, for they too sprinkle [wine] on the ground before their idol.
Seif 4 listed three places — mud, refuse, a filthy spot — and one might think the permission comes from the wine being destroyed. The Taz corrects this: it comes from the place being degrading. Pouring onto clean ground resembles too closely what is done before an idol. The same point is found in the Shach in the name of the Rashba (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ו ס״ק ו).
Three key passages from the Shach
Shach note 1 — the words the Mehaber added to the Rambam
הוא ל׳ הרמב״ם פי״ב מהמ״א דין י״א אלא שהכניס המחבר בדבריו האסור בהנאה ובא להוציא יין שאינו אסור אלא בשתייה דלא שייך ביה ניצוק כדלקמן ס״ה
— ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ו ס״ק א
It is the language of the Rambam, chapter 12 of Forbidden Foods, law 11 — except that the Mehaber introduced into his words “forbidden in benefit”, and this in order to exclude wine that is forbidden only to drink, where nitzok does not apply, as below in seif 5.
An editor’s remark worth a ruling. The Mehaber is not copying the Rambam: he adds a condition, and that condition governs the entire siman. Nitzok is not a connection in general — it is a connection with wine forbidden in benefit. A reader who misses those words will forbid in seif 5 what the Mehaber there expressly permits. Note: the Shach cites the Rambam as law 11; in the text as Sefaria gives it, the passage stands at law 12.
Shach note 9 — why nitzok still applies today
שלא אמרו נצוק חבור אלא המערה לתוך יי״נ האסור בהנאה רשב״א וכ״כ רבינו ירוחם ונראה דאע״ג דכל מגעם וסתם יינם בזמן הזה מותר בהנאה כדלעיל ר״ס קכ״ג מ״מ אמרי׳ בזה ניצוק חבור כיון דמן הדין היה אסור בהנאה ופשוט הוא
— ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ו ס״ק ט
For they said that nitzok is a connection only where one pours into yayin nesekh forbidden in benefit — Rashba, and so wrote Rabbeinu Yeruḥam. And it seems that although all wine they have touched, and stam yeinam, are permitted in benefit nowadays, as above at the beginning of siman 123, we nevertheless say that nitzok is a connection here, since by strict law it would have been forbidden in benefit; and this is obvious.
The difficulty is real and the Shach sees it: if nitzok requires wine forbidden in benefit, and if nowadays non-Jews’ wine is permitted in benefit (siman 123), nitzok should never apply again. His answer is one phrase: מן הדין — one looks at the wine’s standing in strict law, not at the leniency it enjoys today. The Taz reasons differently in his note 2 and draws from it a practical leniency (ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ו ס״ק ב): since the wine is permitted in benefit anyway, one may sell it to a non-Jew even where the loss is small.
Shach note 11 — sixty, or six? a divergence left open
ור״ל דשם פסק דשיעור הביטול היינו שיהא ששה חלקים כנגדו והפסקים סותרים זא״ז וכן הקשה הב״ח בקונטרס אחרון ופסק דסגי בששה חלקים והיה נראה להגיה כאן ששה וכן הוא בש״ע דפוס הענאוי אך בעט״ז כתוב בפירוש ששים תרי זימני וצ״ע
— ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ו ס״ק י״א
That is to say, that there [in siman 134] he ruled that the measure of nullification is that there be six parts against it — and the rulings contradict one another. The Bach raised the same difficulty in his Kuntres Acharon, and ruled that six parts suffice; and it would seem that one should emend “six” here, and so it stands in the Shulchan Aruch of the Hanau printing; but in the Ateret Zekenim “sixty” is written explicitly, twice — and this requires study.
Rare and precious: a commentator who, rather than harmonising, records a contradiction and leaves it open. Two texts by the same author give two measures; the printed editions do not agree; the Bach rules for six, the Ateret Zekenim writes sixty twice, and the Shach concludes צ״ע. For the student the lesson is twofold: the measure for nullifying stam yeinam is an open question, and a printed text is not always a certain text.
6. The gloss of the Rama (הגה) — four interventions
The Rama intervenes in four of the seven seifim — 2, 5, 6 and 7. He never contests the Mehaber’s rule; he fixes its price, its threshold and its measure.
On seif 2 — what the stringency costs
The longest and most practical gloss in the siman. Three clarifications, in order. First: ואין חילוק בין אם היה הרבה יין בחבית או לא — the loss is not measured by what remains in the barrel. Then: וכל מה שהוא בקנקן או בכוס מקרי הפסד מועט — a jug, a cup: that is little, and the stringency holds. And finally the subtlest point: having to sell the goods cheaply to a non-Jew still counts as a substantial loss — but ודוקא ביין נסך, for yayin nesekh only, not for other prohibitions. The Rama gives his source, the conclusion of the Terumat haDeshen siman 204; the Taz sets out its reasoning at length and rejects the second half of it (ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ו ס״ק א).
On seif 5 — the threshold of liquid, and the weight of the prohibition
Two contributions in a single sentence. The threshold: the Mehaber had spoken of a vessel without liquid that wets; the Rama supplies the other side — ואם יש בו כדי להטפיח אסור בנצוק, and he gives a whole front of sources: the Beit Yosef in the name of Rabbeinu Yeruḥam, the Semag, Tosafot and the Rosh. Then the weight, which is decisive: מיהו אינו אוסר יותר מאילו היה מעורב בו — nitzok forbids no more than an ordinary mixture. Put otherwise: it creates a union, it does not create a severity. Hence the immediate consequence — stam yeinam is nullified in sixty, as in siman 134.
On seif 6 — his own view, and a cross-reference
The briefest gloss, and the most debated. The seif is given as ד״ע, the Rama’s own view, with a cross-reference to siman 134 seif 5. It is that cross-reference which triggered the Shach’s remark: siman 134 does not say sixty, it says six parts (see section 5). Two textual details deserve mention to the reader: the parenthesis of the cross-reference is, in the Sefaria text, opened and never closed — we reproduce it as it stands; and the Shach attests that in some editions this cross-reference appears as a full הגה.
On seif 7 — what is counted toward the sixty
The Mehaber gave the outcome; the Rama gives the method of calculation. סלק את מינו כאילו אינו ושאינו מינו רבה עליו ומבטלו: the wine remaining in the press is of the same kind as the wine of the stream, so it is set aside from the count; it is the seeds, the skins and the grapes that nullify. And then a boundary one would not have guessed: wine lees from which no piquette has been made and which are less than twelve months old are still wine — they too are not counted. The Shach devotes to this gloss his longest note, objecting that for anyone who holds in siman 134 that stam yeinam is nullified in sixty, there is no need at all to set aside what is of its own kind (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ו ס״ק י״ג).
One line runs through all four glosses: the Rama does not argue whether nitzok connects — he says what that connection is worth. What it costs in money (seif 2), from what drop it exists (seif 5), by what measure it is nullified (seifim 6 and 7). It is work on thresholds, and that is where practice is decided.
7. Practical cases today
Case 1 — The glass filled over a residue of wine
This is seif 1 in its most everyday form: one pours from a bottle into a glass in which a residue of non-kosher wine remains. The stream touches the wine below — and the question then bears on the whole bottle, not only on what has fallen. Note also the remedy, as old as the rule itself: cut the stream before it reaches the residue, or pour with a thrown jet. A real case is brought to a Rav; this level gives the structure, not the ruling.
Case 2 — When the stringency costs too much
Seif 2 is one of the rare places in the Shulchan Aruch where the size of the loss enters the rule itself. The reason is clear once section 2 has been read: nitzok is a position — that of Rashi and the Rif — against which Rabbeinu Tam holds the opposite. The Rama fixes the threshold: a jug or a cup is a small loss. A cask, a vat, an entire stock is another matter. The question of the amount is itself brought to a Rav, case by case.
Case 3 — The pump, the hose, the bottling line
All modern wine technology works through continuous columns: a full hose, a siphon, a transfer line. These are exactly the conditions in which the question of nitzok arises — and in which the remedy of kitof is no longer available, since the flow does not stop. The siman supplies the grid (is there wine forbidden in benefit below? is the connection direct or of the second rank?) but not the answer: real installations belong to Level 4 and to a rabbinic decision.
Case 4 — The vessel that was used and not rinsed
Seif 5 is the most reassuring seif in the siman, and the one most often misread. A glass, a carafe or a funnel that held non-kosher wine but is dry: there is no wine below, therefore no nitzok, and what remains in the bottle stays permitted, even to drink. Only what went down is at issue. The Rama’s threshold is concrete: is there enough to wet the hand? — and the Rambam already said, of the funnel, that it must be rinsed and wiped before being used again.
Case 5 — The water put in beforehand
Seif 6 is the only seif in the siman that anticipates instead of assessing after the fact: water is put into the jug so that the water may nullify, since wine cannot nullify wine. The Taz notes that the manoeuvre has become unnecessary for us, since siman 134 admits the nullification of stam yeinam (ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ו ס״ק ז). But the logic remains instructive: what nullifies must be of a different kind from what it nullifies, and that rule governs seif 7 as well.
Case 6 — The winepress, the pit, and what is counted
Seif 7 is the siman’s industrial case: a descending flow, touched along the way. The transferable lesson is the lesson of the reckoning: one does not count the total mass, one counts what is not of the same kind as the forbidden substance. Pomace, skins and seeds enter the sixty; wine does not; and even young lees count as wine. In other words, the practical question is never “how much is there?” but “how much of another kind is there?”.
8. Synthesis of Siman 126
In one sentence: when permitted wine is poured into wine forbidden in benefit, the column of liquid joining the two vessels counts as a union — all the wine above is caught. The seven seifim do nothing but say how far that union reaches: it is broken by a single gesture, it does not spread from one vessel to the next, it does not exist where there is nothing below nor where there is no manner of libation, it yields before a substantial loss — and where it does hold, it weighs no more than a mixture and is nullified like one.
Memory table
The question
The criterion
Where
Does the stream connect?
Yes: העמוד הנצוק מחבר
seif 1
Against which wine?
Wine האסור בהנאה, not wine forbidden only to drink
seifim 1 and 5
How is it avoided?
עירה וקיטף — cut the stream; or a shake, or a thrown jet
seif 1
What does the stringency cost?
It is held on a small loss, it yields on a substantial loss
seif 2
Where is the threshold?
A jug, a cup: small · having to sell cheaply: substantial
seif 2 (Rama)
Does the connection spread?
No — נצוק בר נצוק אינו חבור
seif 3
And if the wine is discarded?
אין דרך נסוך בכך, but only in a filthy place
seif 4
And if someone touches the stream?
הכל אסור — that is no longer the same question
seif 4
And if there is no wine below?
No connection: what he poured from is permitted even to drink
seif 5
From what drop?
כדי להטפיח — enough to wet
seif 5 (Rama)
How much does the connection weigh?
אינו אוסר יותר מאילו היה מעורב בו
seif 5 (Rama)
What nullifies?
What is not of the same kind — the water, the pomace, the skins
seifim 6 and 7
In what proportion?
ס׳ כנגדו — but the Shach notes “six” in siman 134
seifim 6 and 7
Comprehension questions
Seif 1 says האסור בהנאה. Are these words the Rambam’s? What would happen in seif 5 if they were removed?
Why does kitof suffice to permit everything, given that the permitted wine did in fact touch the forbidden wine as it fell?
Seif 2 brings the size of the loss into the rule itself. Which position among the Rishonim makes this possible, and who states it (see section 2)?
The Rama is lenient even where the wine can still be sold to a non-Jew — but only for yayin nesekh. Why the restriction?
Explain seif 3 using the Taz’s example: what are the three vessels, and which one remains permitted?
In seif 4, what exactly permits: that the wine is destroyed, or the place where it is poured? Which line of the Taz decides?
Seif 5 permits what remains in the upper vessel; seif 1 forbids it. Do the two seifim contradict each other?
In seif 7, why is the wine left in the press not counted, given that it is by far the most abundant?
Going further
If you wish to go deeper into this siman:
📚 Level 2 — Lamdan: the pilpul — the dispute between Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam over נצוק חיבור in Avoda Zara, the ḥakira on the nature of the connection (union or contact?), and the scope of נצוק בר נצוק
✨ Level 3 — Synthesis: the comparative tables (connection / no connection, small loss / substantial loss, drinking / benefit) and rapid review of the 7 seifim