✦ ❖ ✦

DAAT · LEVEL 4 — HALAKHA LE-MA'ASSE / PSAK

שולחן ערוך · יורה דעה

Siman 126 — Mixture with yayin nesekh, and nitzok: the stream that connects what is poured to what it is poured into — practical psika

סימן קכ״ו · הלכה למעשה

דין יין שנתערב ביין נסך ודין נצוק חבור

פסק המחבר והרמ״א · הכרעת נושאי הכלים · הסקת ההלכה למקרים בני זמננו

⚖️ פסק הלכה ולמעשה ⚖️

✦ ❖ ✦

Halakha le-ma'asse — the practical psika

From the ruling of the Mehaber and the Rama, through the arbitration of the Taz, the Shach,
the Pitchei Teshuva and the Rambam, down to the bottle we pour from

Subject:
שולחן ערוך יורה דעה סימן קכ״ו (ז׳ סעיפים)
עם נושאי הכלים: ט״ז, ש״ך, פתחי תשובה, רמב״ם

⚠ Level warning:
This level is not “Daat HaRav”: the Shulchan Arukh HaRav
(the Alter Rebbe) does not cover Yoreh De'ah, and therefore not Siman 126.
This is a level of practical psika: what one does, and whom one asks.

Written and studied by:
הרב יוסף חיים סממה · DAAT

How to read this level. Every statement here is anchored either in the wording of the Shulchan Arukh and its nossei kelim (Taz, Shach, Pitchei Teshuva), or in a named and verifiable posek (Rambam, Tur, Tosafot, Gemara Avodah Zarah). On Yoreh De'ah there is no Mishna Berurah (which comments only on Orach Chaim) and no Shulchan Arukh HaRav / Daat HaRav (the Alter Rebbe did not write Yoreh De'ah). The Arukh HaShulchan is not cited here: its text on this siman is not accessible to us, and one does not quote what one cannot verify. The same holds for the Kaf HaChaim and the Pri Chadash on this siman. Siman 126 is very short — seven seifim — yet it governs the most ordinary act there is: pouring. Where the question runs past the siman — and a siphon, a pump or a mechanism take it past very quickly — this level says so and stops: halakha le-ma'asse goes through your Rav.

📑 תוכן העניינים

שורש הסימן — נצוק, קטפרס ומשקה טופח (עבודה זרה ע״ב ע״א)
פסק המחבר והרמ״א — מפת הסימן בז׳ סעיפים
עמוד הנצוק — המערה לתוך יין האסור בהנאה (סעיף א׳)
הפסד מרובה והפסד מועט — סף ההיתר המעשי (סעיף ב׳)
נצוק בר נצוק — היכן נעצרת השרשרת (סעיף ג׳)
שפיכה לאיבוד ומגע בקילוח — (סעיף ד׳)
כלי של עובד כוכבים שלא הודח — משקה טופח וכדי להטפיח (סעיף ה׳)
שיעורי ביטול — ששים, ששה חלקים, וסלק את מינו (סעיפים ו׳–ז׳)
נצוק כתערובת ולא כמגע — כלל הפסק של הסימן
סתם יינם בזמן הזה — מה שהזמן הזה מקל ומה שאינו מקל
מקרים מודרניים — בקבוק, עירוי, משפך, סיפון, משאבה
סיכום מעשי — טבלאות, קישורים, ולמעשה שאל את רבך

📜 The text of the Shulchan Arukh — Seif Alef

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:

The founding case. One pours permitted wine into a vessel that already holds a non-Jew's wine which is forbidden in benefit. Then all the wine in the upper vessel becomes forbidden: the descending column of liquid — the nitzok — connects the wine above to the wine below, and the two are regarded as mixed.

The remedy, inside the seif itself. If he poured while breaking the stream (עירה וקיטף) — that is, before the liquid reached the forbidden wine he interrupted the stream descending from the permitted wine — everything is permitted. The siman does not merely forbid: in its very first line it supplies the act that prevents the prohibition from forming.

— Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh De'ah 126:1 · Sefaria YD 126:1

1. שורש הסימן — נצוק, קטפרס ומשקה טופח

The term comes from elsewhere. Nitzok was not born in the laws of wine: it is a term of the laws of purity. A Mishna in Makhshirin, quoted verbatim in our sugya, lists three forms of liquid contact that do not make a joining — the descending stream (נצוק), liquid running down a slope (קטפרס), and a moist film (משקה טופח). The whole question of the siman fits into one line: is what is not a joining for impurity a joining for wine?

« הנצוק והקטפרס ומשקה טופח אינו חיבור לא לטומאה ולא לטהרה »
— משנה מכשירין, מובאת בגמרא (עבודה זרה ע״ב ע״א)

Rav Huna's thesis, and Rav Nachman's refutation. Rav Huna states the opposite for our subject — « נצוק וקטפרס ומשקה טופח חיבור לענין יין נסך » (עבודה זרה ע״ב ע״א). Rav Nachman asks him whence he has it, shows that the Mishna in Makhshirin does not prove it (its opening and its closing would contradict each other), and on this point the sugya concludes אלא מהא ליכא למשמע מינה. Four attempted proofs follow — the Mishna of the funnel, Rabbi Chiyya's baraita, the Mishna of pouring from vessel to vessel, and the wine flowing from the barrel — and none of them decides the matter cleanly.

« המערה מכלי אל כלי את שעירה ממנו מותר ואת שעירה לתוכו אסור »
— משנה (עבודה זרה ע״ב ע״א)

The machloket of the Rishonim, and the formula Tosafot draw from it

Rashi rules that the nitzok is a joining, and so does the Rif; Rabbenu Tam rules that it is not, relying on Rav Sheshet and Mar Zutra, who are later than Rav Chisda. The Rosh concludes like Rashi. The Tur reports that the Maharam of Rothenburg followed the practice of the great men of France: where there was a major loss he permitted the nitzok, but not for a small matter. That dividing line — not “who is right”, but “from what stake onward does one become lenient” — is the line the whole siman will follow, and Tosafot already formulate it:

« במקום שיש הפסד גדול יש לסמוך על דברי ר״ת להתיר מגע עובד כוכבים ע״י נצוק אבל בהפסד מועט יכול להחמיר כדברי רש״י »
— תוספות עבודה זרה ע״ב ע״ב ד״ה אמר להו רב חסדא

The ḥakira of the siman: is the nitzok contact, or mixture?

(a) The nitzok would be a form of contact: the column carries the prohibition upward, as though the non-Jew were touching the upper vessel. (b) The nitzok would be a legal fiction of mixture: we regard the forbidden wine as though it were mingled with the permitted. The Mehaber himself writes in seif 1 ורואים כאילו יין של האיסור מעורב בשל היתר — which leans plainly toward (b). The Taz says it outright, reporting the Rashba:

« ומ״מ לכ״ע הנצוק אינו כמגע עובד כוכבים אלא כתערובות יין »
— ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ו ס״ק ו, בשם הרשב״א

And the nafka mina is the entire second half of the siman. If the nitzok is contact, there is nothing to nullify: contact does not dilute. If it is mixture, then the ordinary rules of bittul apply — and that is exactly what seifim 6 and 7 do, counting in sixty. The Taz even explains the mechanism: the Sages made the joining of the nitzok work like a prohibition absorbed through heat, where sixty is required against the whole of the forbidden substance and not merely against what was absorbed.

כלל הפסק של הסימן :
עמוד היין היורד מן הכלי העליון אל הכלי התחתון — העמוד הנצוק — מחבר את השניים, ורואים את האיסור כאילו יין של האיסור מעורב בשל היתר. שלושה דברים מוציאים מכלל נצוק: עירה וקיטף — שהפסיק את הקילוח קודם שנגע באיסור; נצוק בר נצוק — שאין השרשרת נמשכת; והפסד מרובה — שבו סומכים על הפוסקים המתירים. ואין הנצוק אוסר אלא ביין האסור בהנאה, ואינו אוסר יותר מאילו היה מעורב בו ממש.

2. פסק המחבר והרמ״א — the map of the seven seifim

Siman 126 has seven seifim — that is the count announced by its heading (ובו ז׳ סעיפים) and that is the actual count of the text. The Mehaber carries all seven; the Rama glosses four times: at seif 2 (at length), at seif 5, at seif 6 (a bare cross-reference) and at seif 7. Here is the whole map, as it emerges from the text itself.

Seif	Subject	Ruling (anchored in the text)
1	the nitzok, and the remedy	One pours wine into a vessel holding a non-Jew's wine forbidden in benefit: all the wine in the upper vessel is forbidden, since the column connects and we regard the forbidden as mingled with the permitted. But if he poured breaking the stream before it reached the forbidden wine — permitted.
2	the size of the loss	The nitzok joins only where the loss is slight; where the loss is major — for instance he drew from the barrel into a vessel holding yayin nesekh — it is permitted. Rama: it makes no difference how much wine was in the barrel; even if he can sell it to a non-Jew; and whatever is in a jug or in a cup is called a slight loss. And this applies only to yayin nesekh: for other prohibitions, being able to sell to a non-Jew without great loss is not a major loss.
3	נצוק בר נצוק	The nitzok of a nitzok is not a joining. The chain stops at the first link.
4	pouring to waste	If the non-Jew pours the wine into mud, onto a refuse heap or in a filthy place — that is not a manner of libation, and everything is permitted, both what went out and what stayed inside. But if a Jew or a non-Jew was pouring thus and a non-Jew came and touched the stream — everything is forbidden.
5	an unrinsed vessel	One pours wine into a non-Jew's vessel that has not been rinsed and holds no moist film: what was poured in is forbidden to drink, what remains in the vessel poured from is permitted even to drink. Rama: if there is enough to moisten, the nitzok forbids — but it never forbids more than if the wine were actually mixed in, and if it is stam yeinam it is nullified in sixty.
6	the water that nullifies	A jug of wine containing a pitcher of water, from which one poured into a flask holding a non-Jew's wine: if there is in the jug's water enough to nullify the wine in the flask, it is permitted — and the measure of nullification is sixty against it.
7	the winepress	A winepress whose wine runs down into the pit, and a non-Jew touched the descending stream: if there is in the pips, stalks and grapes of the press sixty against the stream, what is in the press is not forbidden. Rama: for we remove the like kind as though it were not there, and the unlike kind becomes the majority and nullifies it; and wine lees not yet spent and less than twelve months old count as the same kind as wine.

3. עמוד הנצוק — seif 1 and its remedy

המערה יין לתוך כלי שיש בו יין עובד כוכבים האסור בהנאה נאסר כל היין שבכלי העליון

— שולחן ערוך יו״ד קכ״ו:א

The source of the seif is the Rambam — and the Mehaber added four words to it. The Mehaber copies the Rambam here almost letter for letter. The Shach opens his commentary on precisely this, and points out the addition: the Mehaber inserted האסור בהנאה, “forbidden in benefit”, which the Rambam does not write. It is no ornament: it is the condition on which the nitzok applies throughout the siman.

« המערה יין לתוך כלי שיש בו יין עכו״ם נאסר כל היין שבכלי העליון »
— רמב״ם הלכות מאכלות אסורות פרק י״ב הלכה י״ב

« ובא להוציא יין שאינו אסור אלא בשתייה דלא שייך ביה ניצוק »
— ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ו ס״ק א

The remedy is inside the seif, and it is ancient. The Mehaber writes ואם עירה וקיטף: break the stream before it touches the forbidden wine. This is no modern trick — it is the instruction Rav Chisda gave the wine merchants of his day, and which the Rambam restates in two verbs.

« לפיכך המודד לעכו״ם לתוך כלי שבידו ינפץ נפיצה או יזרק זריקה כדי שלא יהיה נצק חבור »
— רמב״ם הלכות מאכלות אסורות פרק י״ב הלכה י״ב

What seif 1 decides, and what it does not

The nitzok goes up, not down. It is the upper vessel that is affected. What is already below was already forbidden.
It operates only against wine forbidden in benefit. The Mehaber writes it, the Shach underlines it, and seif 5 will draw the consequence.
Breaking the stream suffices. Pouring in bursts, shaking, throwing the liquid rather than letting it run: that is the act the Rambam prescribes.
What the seif does not say: what the law is for a stream one cannot break — a pipe, a siphon, a closed circuit. The siman legislates only about a column falling through open air. See section 11.

Le-ma'asse (the act of pouring). Three reflexes. (1) What creates the problem is a continuous stream between two wines. (2) What prevents it is interrupting that stream — and interrupting it before the liquid reaches the lower vessel, not after. (3) What settles the question in advance is not pouring into an occupied vessel at all: one pours into an empty, clean glass. For the application to your situation, consult your Rav.

4. הפסד מרובה והפסד מועט — the threshold of seif 2

הא דנצוק חבור ה״מ בהפסד מועט אבל בהפסד מרובה כגון שהוציא מהחבית לכלי שיש בו יין נסך מותר

— שולחן ערוך יו״ד קכ״ו:ב

A whole seif devoted to a threshold. The Mehaber no longer argues here about the nature of the nitzok: he settles its regime. Since first-rank Rishonim hold that the nitzok is not a joining, one relies on the stringency only so long as the stake stays small. The Shach says it in three words: we rely on the decisors who permit.

« סמכי׳ אהפוסקים המתירים »
— ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ו ס״ק ב

The Rama sets the scale — and it is a very low one

The Rama, following the conclusion of the Terumat HaDeshen (no. 204), gives three clarifications that make the threshold workable. (1) The quantity left in the barrel does not count: ואין חילוק בין אם היה הרבה יין בחבית או לא. (2) Being able to resell the wine to a non-Jew does not cancel the loss — the Shach adds the reason: he will have to sell it a little cheap. (3) And above all, the unit of measure:

« וכל מה שהוא בקנקן או בכוס מקרי הפסד מועט »
— הגה יו״ד קכ״ו:ב

« אלא שצריך לזלזל קצת במכירה לעובד כוכבים »
— ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ו ס״ק ג

The Taz rejects the Terumat HaDeshen's second reason. The Terumat HaDeshen gave two reasons for calling this a major loss: first, that with the yayin nesekh of our time one does not weigh things so finely; second, that if one treated it as a slight loss and sold the wine to a non-Jew, a leniency would follow, since several great authorities forbade such a sale. The Taz sets the second aside: it does not hold for us, since we rule (siman 123) that stam yeinam is permitted in benefit nowadays — and all the more so in the law of the nitzok, which is only a stringency.

« וכ״ש בדין דנצוק שאינו אלא חומרא »
— ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ו ס״ק א

« ע״כ פשוט שגם בהפסד מועט יכול למכרו לעובד כוכבים »
— ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ו ס״ק ב

The Pitchei Teshuva narrows the threshold further. On seif 7 he reports the Dagul Merevava: the case of the winepress assumes there is no loss at all, and that one can sell it to a non-Jew without even having to discount it; but once there is any loss, however slight, we no longer say that the nitzok joins.

« אבל אם יש הפסד קצת שצריך לזלזל קצת במכירה לעובד כוכבים לא אמרינן נצוק חבור בחבית »
— פתחי תשובה יו״ד קכ״ו ס״ק ב, בשם דגול מרבבה

👈 The scale of seif 2, in practice

A glass, a jug, a bottle — a slight loss in the Rama's terms: one is strict.
A barrel, a cask, a case — this is the very example the Mehaber gives of a major loss: one relies on those who permit.
In between, the text gives no figure. The Rama reasons in vessels, the Dagul Merevava in money lost. This is not a question a table settles.
One explicit limit: all this holds for yayin nesekh. The Rama rules out extending it to other prohibitions — « ודוקא ביין נסך » — where the possibility of resale means precisely that there is no major loss.

5. נצוק בר נצוק — where the chain stops

נצוק בר נצוק אינו חבור:

— שולחן ערוך יו״ד קכ״ו:ג

Five words, and an enormous consequence. If the nitzok were a true contact, it would propagate: the vessel forbidden by nitzok would in turn forbid whatever is poured into it. Seif 3 refuses that extension, and the Tur notes that there is no dispute about it at all — « וניצוק בר ניצוק לכולי עלמא שרי » (טור יו״ד סימן קכ״ו). The Shach and the Taz both give the same textbook case.

« ואם חזר ישראל ויצק מכלי אחר לקנקן מה שבכלי האחר מותר »
— ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ו ס״ק ה

👈 The case in three steps

A Jew pours from a jug into a flask holding forbidden wine: the jug is caught by the nitzok.
He then pours from a second vessel into that now-forbidden jug.
The second vessel remains permitted: the nitzok of a nitzok is not a joining. The prohibition does not climb one link further.

Le-ma'asse. This seif is the one that limits the damage: a pouring accident does not set off an endless cascade. It does not, however, say that the first vessel is recoverable — that depends on seif 2 (the size of the loss) and on seif 5 (the exact status of the wine below). Consult your Rav.

6. שפיכה לאיבוד ומגע בקילוח — seif 4

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

— שולחן ערוך יו״ד קכ״ו:ד

Two reasons combine. First, throwing wine into mud is no manner of libation — the prohibition attached to the non-Jew's act presupposes a manner of serving an idol, and sheer destruction is not one. Second, one who pours to waste has himself annulled his intention. The Shach reports this in the name of the Levush, who has it from the Raavad — and it holds even if that non-Jew touches what he is pouring out.

« שכיון שהוא בעצמו שופכו לאיבוד הרי בטלי׳ מחשבתיה ושויה כמים בעלמא ואין כאן מחשבת ניסוך כלל »
— ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ו ס״ק ז, בשם העט״ז

Mind the boundary: “a filthy place” is not “on the ground”. The Taz and the Shach agree in refusing to extend this to bare ground. The reason is concrete, and is cited in the name of the Rashba: they too sprinkle wine on the ground before their idols. The place must be foul, not merely outdoors.

« 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

אבל אם היה ישראל או עובד כוכבים מערה לטיט או לאשפה ובא עובד כוכבים ונגע בקלוח הכל אסור

— שולחן ערוך יו״ד קכ״ו:ד

And the second half overturns the first. The leniency rested on the fact that the one pouring was destroying his own wine. Let another non-Jew come along and touch the stream, and none of that applies: he annulled nothing. His contact catches the stream, and the stream — by nitzok — catches what remains in the vessel. The Gemara had already given the preventive instruction, on another plane, to Jews pouring wine out: do not let a non-Jew come near to help.

« כי שפכיתו חמרא לא ליקרב גוי לסייע בהדייכו »
— עבודה זרה ע״ב ע״ב

Le-ma'asse (emptying a bottle). The seif describes a situation that still occurs: one throws away a wine that has become problematic. It teaches two opposite and equally practical things. What reassures: pouring into the bin or the sink is not an act of libation, and does not catch what remains in the vessel. What warns: a hand that comes to touch the stream while one pours changes everything, and bare ground is not a “filthy place”. For your situation, consult your Rav.

7. כלי שלא הודח — seif 5, and the governing line

המערה יין לתוך כלי של עובד כוכבים שלא הודח ואין בו משקה טופח את שעירה בו אסור בשתייה ואת שעירה ממנו מותר אפי׳ בשתייה

— שולחן ערוך יו״ד קכ״ו:ה

Seif 5 is the counter-test of seif 1. Here the lower vessel holds no wine at all: it is merely impregnated, unrinsed, without even a moist film. The wine poured into it becomes forbidden to drink — that is the regime of vessels, treated in siman 137. But what remains in the vessel poured from is permitted even to drink: there is no nitzok, because there is no wine below that is forbidden in benefit.

« שלא אמרו נצוק חבור אלא המערה לתוך יי״נ האסור בהנאה »
— ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ו ס״ק ט, בשם הרשב״א ורבינו ירוחם

The Rama's gloss — and the most useful sentence in the siman

The Rama corrects the case from above and from below. From above: if the vessel holds enough liquid to moisten (כדי להטפיח), there is indeed a nitzok — and the Shach adds that in a vessel meant for storing wine, mere dampness suffices. From below: and that nitzok, even where it does apply, never forbids more than a real mixture would.

« מיהו אינו אוסר יותר מאילו היה מעורב בו ואם הוא סתם יינם בטל בס׳ »
— הגה יו״ד קכ״ו:ה

« ואם הוא כלי שמכניסו לקיום אפילו בטופח לחוד הוי חבור »
— ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ו ס״ק י, בשם רבינו ירוחם

👈 The four states of the lower vessel

Wine forbidden in benefit — full nitzok: seif 1.
Wine forbidden only to drink — no nitzok, according to the Shach in the name of the Rashba: the phrase האסור בהנאה in seif 1 is there for this.
No wine, but enough to moisten — nitzok, says the Rama; and a storage vessel lowers the threshold further.
Neither wine nor dampness, only an impregnated vessel — no nitzok at all: what remains above is permitted even to drink.

Le-ma'asse (the unrinsed carafe and glass). This seif handles the commonest case today: pouring kosher wine into a glass, a jug or a decanter that has been used and not washed. The first question to ask is not “was there contact?” but “what exactly is at the bottom?” — wine, a pool, a damp trace, or nothing but a dry vessel. The four answers do not share one regime, and the Pitchei Teshuva refers here to a responsum for the borderline cases. Consult your Rav.

8. שיעורי ביטול — the proportions of seifim 6 and 7

אם יש במים של קנקן לבטל היין שבצלוחית מותר ושיעור הביטול היינו שיהיה במים ס׳ כנגדו

— שולחן ערוך יו״ד קכ״ו:ו

Why water, and not wine? Because under the older regime, forbidden wine mingled with wine is a kind within its own kind, which is not nullified. Only water — a different kind — can nullify. The Taz notes this and immediately draws the consequence for us: since we rule (siman 134) that stam yeinam is nullified, water is no longer needed here. The Mehaber reasons within the strict regime; the Taz puts us back in ours.

The contradiction the Shach leaves open. Our seif says sixty. But the Shulchan Arukh itself, in siman 134, gives another measure for the water that nullifies the taste of wine — « כמה יהא במים ויהא בהם כדי לבטל טעם היין ששה חלקים כנגדו » (שו״ע יו״ד קל״ד:ה) : six parts. The Shach notes that some editions carry a gloss here referring to that siman, that the Bach in his Kuntress Acharon ruled for six parts, and that one might have to emend our seif — except that the Levush writes “sixty” twice in full. He closes without deciding.

« אך בעט״ז כתוב בפירוש ששים תרי זימני וצ״ע »
— ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ו ס״ק י״א

גת שהיין יורד ממנו לבור ונגע עובד כוכבים בקלוח היורד אם יש בחרצנים וזגים וענבים שבגת ששים כנגד הקילוח לא נאסר מה שבגת

— שולחן ערוך יו״ד קכ״ו:ז

The mechanism of seif 7: “remove the like kind”. The non-Jew touched the stream running down from the press; by nitzok the prohibition climbs back to what is still in the press. One then counts not the wine — the like kind, which does not nullify — but the pips, the stalks and the grapes. The Rama supplies the formula, which comes from the Gemara of our sugya: we regard the permitted matter of like kind as though it were not there, and the remainder becomes the majority and nullifies.

« דאמרינן סלק את מינו כאילו אינו ושאינו מינו רבה עליו ומבטלו »
— הגה יו״ד קכ״ו:ז

« רואין את ההיתר כאילו אינו והשאר מים רבין עליו ומבטלין אותו »
— עבודה זרה ע״ג ע״א

The Rama adds a definition, and the Shach contests the whole construction

The Rama specifies that wine lees not yet spent and less than twelve months old count as the same kind as wine: they therefore do not count toward the nullification. Then comes the Shach's objection, long and frontal: this calculation of “סלק את מינו” makes sense only according to the Tur, for whom stam yeinam is not nullified within its own kind; but according to the Rama himself, who rules in siman 134 that stam yeinam is nullified in sixty — and who writes so here at the end of seif 5 — there is nothing to remove, and everything counts together. The Shach offers answers, cites Tosafot, and leaves the matter צ״ע לדינא.

« ומכל מקום היכא שיש הפסד מרובה סמכינן אפסק רבינו תם »
— תוספות עבודה זרה ע״ב ע״ב ד״ה אמר להו רב חסדא

👈 What to retain from the proportions — and what not to do with them

The nitzok is counted. That is the direct consequence of the ḥakira: being a mixture, it is nullifiable.
The measure of the siman is sixty, at seifim 6 and 7.
But siman 134 says six parts for water, and the Shach left the contradiction open, in צ״ע.
And the Rama of siman 134 adds a further restriction: where the mixture came about through a nitzok, « אין היין העליון מועיל ליין התחתון לבטל האיסור » (הגה יו״ד קל״ד:ב) — the upper wine does not serve to nullify the lower.
Operative conclusion: three texts that correct one another. Nobody calculates a bittul alone, with a table and a calculator. One calls a Rav.

9. נצוק כתערובת ולא כמגע — the governing principle

Back to the ḥakira, now that we have read all seven seifim. The text has answered, and it has answered four times. (1) At seif 1, in the Mehaber's own word: we regard the forbidden as mingled with the permitted. (2) At seif 3, by refusing propagation: a contact would carry on, a mixture does not. (3) At seif 5, in the Rama's line: the nitzok forbids no more than a real mixture. (4) At seifim 6 and 7, by counting in sixty. The Taz explains the mechanism by an analogy with ordinary food law.

« דחכמים עשו חיבור הניצוק ביין נסך כהיתר הבלוע איסור על ידי שהוא רותח »
— ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ו ס״ק ו

What the analogy yields exactly. With a prohibition absorbed through heat, one does not require sixty against what actually penetrated, but sixty against the whole of the forbidden object. The Sages did the same with the nitzok: we do not measure the column of liquid that actually bridged the gap, we measure as though all the forbidden wine were present above. This is what makes the nitzok at once heavier than it looks (one counts against the whole) and lighter than a contact (one counts, and therefore one can nullify).

שלוש מסקנות מן היסוד הזה :
אחת — הנצוק בטל, שהרי כתערובת הוא. שתים — אינו מתפשט, שהרי אין כאן מגע המשתלשל, ולכך נצוק בר נצוק אינו חבור. שלוש — אינו אוסר אלא ביין האסור בהנאה, שאין תערובת חמורה מן המעורב עצמו. וזהו לשון הרמ״א: אינו אוסר יותר מאילו היה מעורב בו.

10. סתם יינם בזמן הזה — what our era changes

The starting point is at siman 123. There the Rama reports that in our days, when it is not common for the nations to make libations, there are those who hold that a non-Jew's contact with our wine is forbidden only to drink and not in benefit — and likewise their ordinary wine.

« י״א דמגע עובד כוכבים ביין שלנו אינו אסור בהנאה רק בשתייה »
— הגה יו״ד קכ״ג:א

An immediate objection — and the Shach raised it himself. If the nitzok operates only against wine forbidden in benefit (seif 5), and in our day nothing is any longer so forbidden, then the nitzok should never operate again. The Shach sees the difficulty and closes it: we nevertheless say here that the nitzok joins, since by strict law this wine would have been forbidden in benefit.

« מ״מ אמרי׳ בזה ניצוק חבור כיון דמן הדין היה אסור בהנאה ופשוט הוא »
— ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ו ס״ק ט

👈 What the era lightens, and what it does not

It does not abolish the nitzok. The Shach writes so, and adds ופשוט הוא.
It lightens the financial consequence. The affected wine is not lost: the Taz writes that it may be sold to a non-Jew even where the loss is slight.
It lightens the calculation. The Rama rules in siman 134 that stam yeinam of our time is nullified in sixty — « ויש אומרים דכל סתם יינם בזמן הזה בטל בששים » (הגה יו״ד קל״ד:ב) — and adds « וכן נוהגין להקל ».
It lightens the threshold. The Taz grounds the leniency in a major loss on the fact that the nitzok is in any case only a stringency.
But it overturns nothing. Each of these four points is a reported position with its conditions; none of them is a blanket permission to pour into forbidden wine. The difference between “there is something to rely on where there is a loss” and “it is permitted” is precisely what one asks a Rav.

11. מקרים מודרניים — Siman 126 at our table

The five questions of the siman, in the order they must be asked. (1) What is in the lower vessel — wine forbidden in benefit, wine forbidden only to drink, dampness, or nothing? (seifim 1 and 5). (2) Was the stream continuous up to the contact, or broken? (seif 1). (3) What is the stake — a glass, a bottle, a cask? (seif 2). (4) Are we at the first link or the second? (seif 3). (5) Is there anything to nullify with, and by what measure? (seifim 6-7, and siman 134). What is not in this siman: the force of the non-Jew (siman 125), a mixture without a nitzok (siman 134), impregnated vessels (siman 137).

Modern case	Tool of the siman	Orientation (to be confirmed with your Rav)
Kosher wine is poured into a glass that already holds non-kosher wine	Seif 1	This is the founding case to the letter. The column connects, and the effect climbs back to the bottle in one's hand. The question that follows at once is seif 2's: what is the stake?
The preventive act: breaking the stream	Seif 1 · רמב״ם הלכות מאכלות אסורות פרק י״ב הלכה י״ב	עירה וקיטף: interrupt the stream before it reaches the wine below. The Rambam prescribes two acts — ינפץ נפיצה, יזרק זריקה. Pour in bursts rather than in one continuous stream.
A bottle of kosher wine held and poured by a non-Jew	Siman 125 · the cross-reference of הגה יו״ד קכ״ה:א to our siman	The fact that the wine comes out by his force belongs to siman 125, not to ours. Siman 126 enters only regarding what remains in the bottle — and that is exactly where the Rama, in siman 125, points to our seif 2: one is strict, except where the loss is major.
Decanting into an unrinsed carafe, decanter or glass	Seif 5 · ש״ך ס״ק ט–י	Everything depends on what lies at the bottom: wine, a pool large enough to moisten, a trace, or nothing. With neither wine nor dampness, what remains above is permitted even to drink. With enough to moisten, the Rama says there is a nitzok — and lower still in a storage vessel.
A funnel that has been used	משנה (עבודה זרה ע״ב ע״א) · רמב״ם הלכות מאכלות אסורות פרק י״ב הלכה י״ג	This is the Mishna from which the whole sugya starts: if wine is retained in the funnel, one does not then measure with it for a Jew before rinsing and drying it. The proper regime of vessels is in siman 137.
A siphon, a tube, a tasting straw	עבודה זרה ע״ב ע״ב · and the Gemara's own rejection	The Gemara tells the story — a non-Jew laid his hand on the siphon and Rava forbade all the wine — and then refuses to draw a proof about the nitzok from it: « שאני התם דכולי חמרא אגישתא ובת גישתא גריר ». A siphon is therefore not treated as an ordinary nitzok, and the Mehaber does not legislate on it in our siman. A question to put to a Rav exactly as it stands.
A two-spouted vessel, two people drawing at once	עבודה זרה ע״ב ע״ב · רמב״ם הלכות מאכלות אסורות פרק י״ב הלכה י״ד	Mar Zutra permits the kenishkenin, provided the Jew stops first. The case is reported within the nitzok sugya but settled elsewhere; above all it shows that a rising column is not automatically a descending one.
A pump, a tap system, an automatic filler, a pressurised circuit	The siman supplies the principle — and stops there	The Shulchan Arukh legislates here only about a column falling through open air between two open vessels. A closed circuit, suction, a force that is no longer a hand's: neither the siman nor its nossei kelim deal with them. To be described to a Rav with the mechanism in hand, without extrapolating.
Emptying a bottle that has become problematic into the sink	Seif 4 · ט״ז ס״ק ד · ש״ך ס״ק ו–ז	Pouring to waste is not a manner of libation, and what remains in the vessel is not caught by it. Two reservations in the text: the place must be filthy, not bare ground; and if a non-Jew touches the stream in the process, everything is caught.
An accident: two wines mingle in one vessel, with no pouring	Siman 134, not ours	With no column of liquid there is no nitzok at all: this is an ordinary mixture, whose proper place is siman קל״ד · 134. The Rama of our seif 5 points there himself.
How much is needed to nullify?	Seifim 6-7 · שו״ע יו״ד קל״ד:ה · ש״ך ס״ק י״א	Our siman counts in sixty; siman 134 speaks of six parts for water; the Shach notes the contradiction and leaves it in צ״ע; and the Rama there adds that the upper wine does not count toward nullifying the lower. No calculation is made without a Rav.
A second pouring, into the already affected vessel	Seif 3	נצוק בר נצוק אינו חבור: the second vessel is not affected. The chain stops at the first link.
The wine is mevushal	שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ג:ג — outside our siman	The regime of cooked wine belongs to siman 123; and the “mevushal” certification of an industrial wine is a matter of ruling and supervision, not of our siman's wording.

Le-ma'asse. Before asking, gather the facts the siman requires, in this order: what was below (wine, a pool, a trace, nothing); the status of that lower wine (forbidden in benefit, or only to drink); the continuity of the stream (broken or not, and broken before or after the contact); what is at stake (a glass, a bottle, a cask, a cellar); how many pourings (first link or second); and what there is to nullify with (water, solids, nothing). With these six elements the question becomes askable. Without them no table can answer — and with them, it is your Rav who answers.

12. סיכום מעשי — summary and tables

טבלה — the measures of the siman, in practice

Question	Measure (in practice)	Source
Pouring into wine forbidden in benefit	The whole upper vessel is forbidden	שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ו:א ; רמב״ם הלכות מאכלות אסורות פרק י״ב הלכה י״ב
Pouring while breaking the stream before contact	Permitted	שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ו:א ; עבודה זרה ע״ב ע״ב
Pouring into wine forbidden only to drink	No nitzok	ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ו ס״ק א ; ש״ך ס״ק ט
A slight loss (a glass, a jug)	One is strict: the nitzok joins	שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ו:ב + הגה
A major loss (a barrel)	Permitted — one relies on the lenient decisors	שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ו:ב ; ש״ך ס״ק ב ; תוספות עבודה זרה ע״ב ע״ב
Being able to resell the wine to a non-Jew	Does not stop the loss from counting as major — he must discount it	הגה יו״ד קכ״ו:ב ; ש״ך ס״ק ג
Selling the affected wine to a non-Jew even in a slight loss	Possible according to the Taz, in our day	ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ו ס״ק א–ב
Prohibitions other than yayin nesekh	The possibility of resale means there is no major loss	הגה יו״ד קכ״ו:ב
A second pouring into the already affected vessel	Permitted — נצוק בר נצוק אינו חבור	שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ו:ג ; טור יו״ד סימן קכ״ו ; ש״ך ס״ק ה
A non-Jew pours into mud, refuse, a filthy place	Everything permitted — inside as well as outside	שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ו:ד
Pouring onto bare ground	Not covered by this leniency	ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ו ס״ק ד ; ש״ך ס״ק ו
A non-Jew touches the stream while it is being poured to waste	Everything is forbidden	שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ו:ד
Pouring into an unrinsed vessel with no dampness	What is poured in: forbidden to drink. What remains above: permitted even to drink	שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ו:ה ; ש״ך ס״ק ח–ט
An unrinsed vessel with enough to moisten	Nitzok — but no more than a real mixture	הגה יו״ד קכ״ו:ה
A vessel meant for storing wine	Mere dampness suffices to make a joining	ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ו ס״ק י
Nullification by water in the upper vessel	Sixty against it — according to our seif	שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ו:ו
The same question at siman 134	Six parts — a contradiction noted and left in צ״ע	שו״ע יו״ד קל״ד:ה ; ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ו ס״ק י״א
A winepress whose descending stream was touched	Sixty in the pips, stalks and grapes against the stream	שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ו:ז
How to count	Remove the like kind, the remainder nullifies	הגה יו״ד קכ״ו:ז ; עבודה זרה ע״ג ע״א
Wine lees less than twelve months old	Count as the same kind as wine	הגה יו״ד קכ״ו:ז
Does the upper wine help nullify the lower?	No, where the mixture came about through a nitzok	הגה יו״ד קל״ד:ב
Stam yeinam in our day	Nullified in sixty, and such is the lenient practice	הגה יו״ד קל״ד:ב
Does the nitzok still apply nowadays?	Yes — since by strict law this wine would have been forbidden in benefit	ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ו ס״ק ט

טבלה — who says what (the nossei kelim of the siman)

Posek	Decisive contribution (corpus-anchored)
Mehaber (ז׳ סעיפים)	The nitzok and the remedy of the broken stream (s.1); the threshold of loss (s.2); נצוק בר נצוק (s.3); pouring to waste, and contact with the stream (s.4); the unrinsed vessel and the two directions of pouring (s.5); nullification by water, in sixty (s.6); the winepress and the sixty against the stream (s.7).
Rama (הגה on s.2, s.5, s.6, s.7)	s.2: the quantity left in the barrel does not count, nor does the possibility of resale, a jug or a cup is a slight loss, and all of it applies to yayin nesekh alone; s.5: כדי להטפיח creates a nitzok, but the nitzok forbids no more than a real mixture and stam yeinam is nullified in sixty; s.6: a cross-reference to siman 134; s.7: סלק את מינו, and the definition of lees under twelve months.
Taz (טורי זהב, ז׳ ס״ק)	ס״ק א: the Terumat HaDeshen's second reason does not hold for us, and the nitzok is only a stringency; ס״ק ב: against the Levush — one may sell to a non-Jew even in a slight loss; ס״ק ג: the case of the nitzok of a nitzok; ס״ק ד: a filthy place and not bare ground; ס״ק ה: the Raavad on a second non-Jew's contact; ס״ק ו: the longest in the siman — the nitzok is mixture and not contact, whence nullification in sixty; ס״ק ז: why water is needed, and why we no longer need it.
Shach (שפתי כהן, י״ג ס״ק)	ס״ק א: the seif is the Rambam, plus the decisive addition האסור בהנאה; ס״ק ב: in a major loss one relies on those who permit; ס״ק ג: he must discount; ס״ק ד: the reasoning of the Terumat HaDeshen; ס״ק ה: the case of the nitzok of a nitzok; ס״ק ו: bare ground, against the Levush; ס״ק ז: one who pours to waste has annulled his intention; ס״ק ח: cross-reference to siman 137; ס״ק ט: there is no nitzok except against wine forbidden in benefit — and it applies even nowadays; ס״ק י: the storage vessel; ס״ק י״א: the sixty / six parts contradiction, left in צ״ע; ס״ק י״ב: and the same for a barrel; ס״ק י״ג: the objection to the Rama's סלק את מינו, Tosafot, and צ״ע לדינא.
Pitchei Teshuva (ב׳ ס״ק)	ס״ק א: on the pouring of seif 5, a reference to the Panim Meirot and to his brother's responsa; ס״ק ב: the Dagul Merevava on seif 7 — once there is any loss at all, we no longer say the nitzok joins.
Rambam (הלכות מאכלות אסורות פרק י״ב)	הלכה י״ב: the source of seif 1, and the prescription of the two acts that break the stream; הלכה י״ג: the funnel and the retained wine; הלכה י״ד: the two-spouted vessel; הלכה ט״ו: one who draws with a pipette.
Tur (יו״ד סימן קכ״ו)	The machloket of Rashi and Rabbenu Tam, the Rosh's conclusion like Rashi, the Maharam of Rothenburg's practice of leniency in a major loss, the unanimity on נצוק בר נצוק, and the Tur's own ruling on stam yeinam.
Gemara and Tosafot (עבודה זרה ע״ב–ע״ג)	ע״ב ע״א: the Mishna of the funnel and of pouring from vessel to vessel, the Mishna of Makhshirin, Rav Huna's thesis and Rav Nachman's refutation; ע״ב ע״ב: Rav Chisda's instruction to break the stream, Rava's instruction about the non-Jew who helps, Rava's siphon and the kenishkenin; ע״ג ע״א: ראשון ראשון בטל and רואין את ההיתר כאילו אינו; and Tosafot, who fix the line — rely on Rabbenu Tam where the loss is major.

Sefaria links (text and nossei kelim)

Shulchan Arukh YD 126: 126:1 · 126:2 · 126:3 · 126:4 · 126:5 · 126:6 · 126:7
Taz (Turei Zahav): 126 s.k. 1 · 126 s.k. 4 · 126 s.k. 6
Shach (Siftei Kohen): 126 s.k. 1 · 126 s.k. 9 · 126 s.k. 13
Pitchei Teshuva: 126 s.k. 1 · 126 s.k. 2
Tur and Beit Yosef: טור יו״ד קכ״ו · בית יוסף יו״ד קכ״ו
Rambam: מאכלות אסורות י״ב:י״ב · י״ב:י״ג · י״ב:י״ד
Gemara and Tosafot: עבודה זרה ע״ב ע״א · עבודה זרה ע״ב ע״ב · עבודה זרה ע״ג ע״א · תוספות עבודה זרה ע״ב ע״ב
Neighbouring simanim: YD 123:1 (stam yeinam nowadays) · YD 134:2 (the mixture) · YD 137:1 (the vessels)

👈 הלכה למעשה — the golden rule of this level

In substance, hold on to the single line of the siman: a continuous stream between two wines carries the prohibition from below up into the vessel above — and this is regarded as a mixture, not as a contact.
Three ways out, and the siman supplies them itself: breaking the stream (seif 1), the size of the loss (seif 2), and the second link (seif 3).
One condition governs the whole siman: the nitzok operates only against wine forbidden in benefit. That is the Mehaber's addition to the Rambam's wording, and the Shach underlines it in his very first line.
The consequence of the ḥakira is numerical: because it is a mixture, it can be nullified. But the measures diverge — sixty here, six parts in siman 134 — and the Shach left the contradiction open. One more reason to calculate nothing alone.
Our era lightens the consequences, not the rule: the affected wine can be sold, stam yeinam is nullified in sixty, the nitzok is only a stringency — yet the Shach maintains that it applies, and adds ופשוט הוא.
And for any real case — a glass, a carafe, a funnel, a siphon, a pump, an entire cellar — halakha le-ma'asse goes through your Rav: consult your Rav.

← Level 3 — Synthesis ↑ Siman קכ״ו — contents

~ ~ ~ ~ ~
DAAT · הרב יוסף חיים סממה
תלמיד חכם · מעביר שיעורים בהלכה ובחסידות
פסק והלכה למעשה בדין יין שנתערב ביין נסך ודין נצוק חבור · סימן קכ״ו · ⚖️ Level 4 — Halakha le-ma'asse

⚠️ This content is for study. The contemporary streams of psika cited (Sephardic and Ashkenazi) are landmarks, not a personal ruling. For any practical application (לְמַעֲשֶׂה), consult a qualified Rav.

📖Join the khavroutha