✦ ❖ ✦ D A A T · L E V E L 3 — S Y N T H E S I S / R E V I E W ✦ ❖ ✦

Siman 126 — Mixture with yayin nesekh — and nitzok, the connecting stream

דין יין שנתערב ביין נסך ודין נצוק חבור

The stream of wine running from one vessel into another: when it makes the two wines a single body, the four acts that cut it, the threshold of loss, the line of משקה טופח, and the sixty that nullify it
Structured review, ruling tables, fast memorisation

Source: Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah קכ״ו — 7 seifim
Nosei kelim: ש״ך (Shach) · ט״ז (Taz) · באר הגולה · ביאור הגר״א · פתחי תשובה · באר היטב
Compiled by: הרב יוסף חיים סממה · DAAT
For students who have mastered Levels 1 and 2
daattorah.com

📑 Plan of the synthesis

The axiom: נצוק חבור — the connecting stream makes the two wines one
The 3 reflex questions: which wine below · is the stream unbroken · how great is the loss
Master table A — when nitzok connects and when it does not
Master table B — the four acts that cut the link
The threshold of הפסד מרובה — seif 2 and the Rama's measure
The unrinsed vessel — seif 5 and the line of משקה טופח
Sixty against the stream — nitzok settled by nullification (seifim 5, 6 and 7)
The גת of seif 7 and סלק את מינו
The 6 golden rules
Mnemonic — the aide-mémoire « נצוק »
The 5 classic traps
Recap of the 7 seifim — one line each
Final flash card

1. The axiom: נצוק חבור — the connecting stream makes the two wines one

The starting point:

In Siman 124 the non-Jew touched the wine; in Siman 125 he did not touch it but moved it by his force. Here he does nothing at all — it is the Jew who pours. What forbids is neither his hand nor his force but a piece of geometry: wine runs down from an upper vessel into a lower one that holds forbidden wine, and as long as the stream falls unbroken the Shulchan Aruch treats it as a bridge — the wine above and the wine below are no longer two. That is the subject of the siman, announced in its title: דין יין שנתערב ביין נסך ודין נצוק חבור.

Everything else in the siman sets out when that bridge exists, and by what it is cut.

The gemara raises the question and does not settle it at once; it opens on the residue in a funnel: « הא עכבת יין במאי קא מתסרא לאו בנצוק שמע מינה נצוק חיבור » (עבודה זרה ע״ב ע״ב).

It reopens it on one who decants: « המערה מכלי לכלי את שמערה ממנו מותר הא דביני ביני אסור שמע מינה נצוק חיבור » (עבודה זרה ע״ב ע״ב).

And there, in passing, appears the act that will rescue the whole siman — breaking the stream: « אי נצוק חיבור אפילו דגויה דמנא נמי ליתסר הא לא קשיא דקא מקטיף קטופי » (עבודה זרה ע״ב ע״ב).

The source	What it establishes	Its consequence in the siman
The sugya of נצוק (עבודה זרה ע״ב ע״ב)	The falling stream joins the contents of both vessels	The opening sentence of seif 1
The answer דקא מקטיף קטופי (עבודה זרה ע״ב ע״ב)	A broken stream joins nothing	The קיטוף that closes seif 1
Rambam on one who pours (רמב״ם הלכות מאכלות אסורות פרק י״ב הלכה י״ב)	The mechanism is an unbroken column of wine	The very wording of seif 1
The Tur and the dispute of the Rishonim (טור יו״ד קכ״ו)	Rashi and the Rif hold nitzok is a connection; Rabbenu Tam does not; the Rosh rules like Rashi	The leniency of seif 2 in case of great loss

Rambam supplies the formula the Mehaber reproduces almost word for word: « שהרי העמוד הנצוק מחבר בין היין שבכלי העליון ובין היין שבכלי התחתון » (רמב״ם הלכות מאכלות אסורות פרק י״ב הלכה י״ב).

And in the same passage he already prescribes the remedy: « ינפץ נפיצה או יזרוק זריקה כדי שלא יהיה נצוק חבור » (רמב״ם הלכות מאכלות אסורות פרק י״ב הלכה י״ב).

💡 The words the Mehaber added: seif 1 does not speak of forbidden wine in general but of a non-Jew's wine that is אסור בהנאה — forbidden even for benefit. Those words are not in the Rambam: the Mehaber inserted them, and the Shach flags it in his very first ס״ק, to exclude wine forbidden only for drinking, where nitzok does not apply (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ו ס״ק א). Keep it in mind: it is the key to half the siman, and the reason seif 5 permits what it permits.

⚖ Two cumulative conditions for nitzok to bite

Wine forbidden for benefit below — seif 1 says so expressly. The Shach repeats it at seif 5: nitzok was stated only for one pouring into yayin nesekh forbidden for benefit (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ו ס״ק ט).
An unbroken stream — one still touching the upper vessel when it reaches the wine below. Cut it, and it joins nothing: seif 1 ends on קיטוף, and seif 3 turns that into a general rule — נצוק בר נצוק.

The practical upshot: pouring from a permitted vessel into one holding yayin nesekh forbidden for benefit condemns the entire upper vessel; breaking the stream before it reaches the wine below saves it entirely.

2. The 3 reflex questions

■ 1. WHAT WINE IS BELOW? Wine forbidden for benefit — nitzok connects (seif 1). Wine forbidden only for drinking — it does not. A non-Jew's vessel merely unrinsed, with no משקה טופח — it does not either, and what is poured out of it stays permitted even for drinking (seif 5).

↓ if there truly is forbidden wine below, is the stream unbroken?

■ 2. IS THE STREAM UNBROKEN? קיטוף — interrupting the flow before it reaches the forbidden wine — cancels everything (seif 1). And the link is not passed on from one rung to the next: נצוק בר נצוק אינו חבור (seif 3).

↓ if the stream did connect, how much stands to be lost?

■ 3. HOW GREAT IS THE LOSS? Nitzok was upheld only where the loss is slight. Once there is substantial loss, one relies on those who permit (seif 2). And even where the link holds, the wine below is not a contact but a mixture: sixty nullify it (seifim 5, 6 and 7).

On the first point the Shach gives the underlying reason in a single line: « דניצוק אינו אוסר אלא ביין האסור בהנאה » (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ו ס״ק ו).

On the third he names the authority to lean on without preamble: « סמכי׳ אהפוסקים המתירים » (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ו ס״ק ב).

3. Master table A — when nitzok connects and when it does not

Basis: seifim 1, 3, 4 and 5 of the Mehaber with the Rama. Two things are always checked: what is in the lower vessel, and the state of the stream.

The situation	Does the stream connect?	Ruling	Source
Pouring wine into a vessel holding a non-Jew's wine forbidden for benefit	Yes — העמוד הנצוק מחבר	All the wine in the upper vessel is forbidden	שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ו:א
He poured and then cut the stream before it reached the forbidden wine	No — the bridge never existed	Permitted	שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ו:א
נצוק בר נצוק — a second pouring into a vessel itself forbidden only by nitzok	No — the link is not passed down a rung	Permitted	שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ו:ג
A non-Jew pours wine onto mud, onto a refuse heap or into a filthy place	The question does not arise: this is no manner of ניסוך	All permitted, what came out and what stayed in	שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ו:ד
A Jew or a non-Jew pours it away thus, and a non-Jew touches the stream	Yes — the contact seizes the whole column	Everything is forbidden	שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ו:ד
Pouring into a non-Jew's unrinsed vessel with no משקה טופח	No wine below, only absorption in the walls	What is poured in is forbidden for drinking; what is poured out of it is permitted even for drinking	שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ו:ה
The same vessel, but enough is left to moisten (כדי להטפיח)	Yes	Forbidden by nitzok — but no more than if the wine were mixed in	רמ״א יו״ד קכ״ו:ה

Seif 1 states the mechanism in one breath: « המערה יין לתוך כלי שיש בו יין עובד כוכבים האסור בהנאה נאסר כל היין שבכלי העליון » (שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ו:א).

And seif 3 runs to four words: « נצוק בר נצוק אינו חבור » (שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ו:ג).

💡 How to picture נצוק בר נצוק: the Shach supplies the scene. A Jew pours part of his wine into a vessel of yayin nesekh: what remains in the קנקן above becomes forbidden משום ניצוק. If he now pours from a third vessel into that forbidden קנקן, the third vessel stays permitted — for the קנקן is not forbidden in its own right, only by nitzok (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ו ס״ק ה). The Taz describes the same chain (ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ו ס״ק ג). The Tur had already given it as unanimous: « וניצוק בר ניצוק לכולי עלמא שרי » (טור יו״ד קכ״ו).

4. Master table B — the four acts that cut the link

The siman devotes more space to what undoes the bridge than to the bridge itself. Four distinct mechanisms, not to be confused: physically breaking the stream, the second rung, the threshold of loss, and the filthy destination.

The act	Why the link fails	Ruling	Source
קיטוף — interrupting the flow — « ואם עירה וקיטף שקודם שנגע בשל האיסור הפסיק קלוח היורד מהיין של היתר מותר »	There is no unbroken column at the moment of contact	Permitted	שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ו:א
נצוק בר נצוק — the second rung	The intermediate vessel is not forbidden in its own right	Permitted, by all opinions	שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ו:ג
הפסד מרובה — substantial loss	One relies on the Rishonim who hold nitzok is no connection	Permitted	שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ו:ב
מקום לכלוך — pouring it away, onto mud or refuse	This is no manner of ניסוך: the wine is not offered, it is discarded	All permitted	שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ו:ד
But a non-Jew touches the stream being poured away	The contact restores the ניסוך the destination had removed	Everything is forbidden	שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ו:ד

⚠ The fine line of seif 4: the leniency turns on the filth of the destination, not on the act of discarding. The Shach limits it expressly: « אבל ע״ג קרקע לא שאף הם מזלפין ע״ג קרקע לפני עבודת כוכבים שלהן » (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ו ס״ק ו). The Taz says the same: « 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). Pouring onto bare ground is not pouring onto a refuse heap — it is, on the contrary, the very gesture of libation.

⚖ Why is wine poured away permitted right through?

The Shach reports, in the name of the עט״ז and along the line of the Rashba citing the Raavad, a reason that goes further than the seif: even if that same non-Jew touched the wine he is himself pouring away, everything stays permitted, because in discarding it he annulled his own intent and reduced it to plain water — there is no מחשבת ניסוך left at all (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ו ס״ק ז). Which explains the second half of the seif: as soon as it is another non-Jew who comes and touches the stream, he has annulled nothing, and the Taz underlines it in the Raavad's name — « דהא עובד כוכבים בתרא לא בטליה » (ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ו ס״ק ה).

5. The threshold of הפסד מרובה — seif 2 and the Rama's measure

Seif 2 does to nitzok what no other seif in the siman does: it suspends it entirely once the loss becomes substantial. It is the exit used most in practice — and the question follows at once: from what point is a loss substantial?

The Mehaber lays down the rule and its example: « הא דנצוק חבור ה״מ בהפסד מועט אבל בהפסד מרובה כגון שהוציא מהחבית לכלי שיש בו יין נסך מותר » (שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ו:ב).

The Rama supplies the measure, and it is a narrow one: « וכל מה שהוא בקנקן או בכוס מקרי הפסד מועט » (רמ״א יו״ד קכ״ו:ב).

The case	Classification	Ruling	Source
Whatever fits in a קנקן or in a cup	Slight loss	Nitzok holds: forbidden	רמ״א יו״ד קכ״ו:ב
What was drawn from a barrel into a vessel holding yayin nesekh	Substantial loss	Permitted	שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ו:ב
The quantity left in the barrel is irrelevant — « ואין חילוק בין אם היה הרבה יין בחבית או לא »	The criterion is not the residual volume	Permitted	רמ״א יו״ד קכ״ו:ב
He can still sell it to a non-Jew	Still a substantial loss where yayin nesekh is concerned	Permitted	רמ״א יו״ד קכ״ו:ב
Other food prohibitions, where resale is possible	Not a substantial loss	The exit does not apply	רמ״א יו״ד קכ״ו:ב

💡 The leniency belongs to yayin nesekh: the Rama says it in three words — ודוקא ביין נסך — and refers to the conclusion of the תרומת הדשן, siman 204. The Shach explains why: the great authorities have eased the law of wine in many places nowadays, and above all, to count this a slight loss would be a stringency leading to a leniency, since several forbid selling a non-Jew wine that his contact has rendered forbidden (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ו ס״ק ד). A stringency that costs more than it gains is no stringency.

⚖ The Taz widens the door, and the Pitchei Teshuva half-closes it

The Taz observes that the second reason of the תרומת הדשן no longer applies to us, since we hold at the start of Siman 123 that stam yeinam is permitted for benefit nowadays. Hence his conclusion, against the Levush who wanted the wine poured out rather than sold: « ע״כ פשוט שגם בהפסד מועט יכול למכרו לעובד כוכבים » (ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ו ס״ק ב).

The Shach had already noted on the Rama's phrase that permission to sell comes at a price: « אלא שצריך לזלזל קצת במכירה לעובד כוכבים » (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ו ס״ק ג).

And the Pitchei Teshuva, citing the דגול מרבבה, turns that very detail into a criterion: seif 7 speaks only of a case where there is no loss at all and one can sell without even lowering the price — « דכאן מיירי שאין הפסד כלל ויכול למכרו לעובד כוכבים » (פתחי תשובה יו״ד קכ״ו ס״ק ב). Once one must discount a little, there is loss, and we no longer say nitzok is a connection.

6. The unrinsed vessel — seif 5 and the line of משקה טופח

Seif 5 is the pivot of the siman: it is here that the condition האסור בהנאה of seif 1 produces its visible effect.

The Mehaber rules on both directions of the pouring: « את שעירה בו אסור בשתייה ואת שעירה ממנו מותר אפי׳ בשתייה » (שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ו:ה).

■ WHAT IS POURED INTO THE VESSEL — it meets the yayin nesekh absorbed in the walls: forbidden for drinking, as explained in Siman 137 (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ו ס״ק ח).

↓ but nothing travels back up

■ WHAT REMAINS IN THE UPPER VESSEL — permitted even for drinking, since nitzok connects only to actual yayin nesekh forbidden for benefit; an absorbed wall is not that.

The Shach states the general rule in the name of the Rashba and Rabbenu Yerucham: « שלא אמרו נצוק חבור אלא המערה לתוך יי״נ האסור בהנאה » (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ו ס״ק ט).

⚠ The exact threshold: everything turns on the words משקה טופח — moisture enough to wet. The Mehaber permits only where the vessel has none. The Rama adds the counterpart: ואם יש בו כדי להטפיח אסור בנצוק, in the name of the Beit Yosef citing Rabbenu Yerucham, the Semag, Tosafot and the Rosh (רמ״א יו״ד קכ״ו:ה).

And the Shach lowers the threshold further in one case — a vessel kept in permanent use: « ואם הוא כלי שמכניסו לקיום אפילו בטופח לחוד הוי חבור » (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ו ס״ק י).

💡 The Rama does not stop at the prohibition: he moves straight on to its measure — מיהו אינו אוסר יותר מאילו היה מעורב בו. Nitzok aggravates nothing: at most it does what a mixture would do. And if it is stam yeinam, sixty nullify it, as will be explained in Siman 134 (רמ״א יו״ד קכ״ו:ה). That is the bridge to the next section.

7. Sixty against the stream — nitzok settled by nullification

The last three seifim change register. They no longer ask whether the bridge exists, but how much it weighs — because nitzok, once granted, operates not as a contact but as a mixture.

The Taz says so plainly in the Rashba's name: « ומ״מ לכ״ע הנצוק אינו כמגע עובד כוכבים אלא כתערובות יין » (ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ו ס״ק ו).

The case	What must be nullified	The measure	Source
An unrinsed vessel with enough left to moisten, where it is stam yeinam	The absorption	Nullified in sixty	רמ״א יו״ד קכ״ו:ה
A קנקן of wine holding a קיתון of water, poured into a צלוחית containing a non-Jew's wine	The wine in the צלוחית	Sixty of the water in the קנקן against it	שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ו:ו
The גת from which wine runs into the בור, and a non-Jew touches the stream	The stream touched	Sixty of חרצנים, זגים and ענבים in the גת against the stream	שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ו:ז

Seif 6 sets the measure itself: « ושיעור הביטול היינו שיהיה במים ס׳ כנגדו » (שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ו:ו).

💡 Why water and not wine? Because wine against wine is מין במינו — the same kind, which does not nullify. The Taz notes it on the spot: « דהיין אינו מבטל היין האסור דמין במינו הוא ולא בטיל גבי יין » (ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ו ס״ק ז). He adds at once that for us, who hold in Siman 134 that stam yeinam is nullified, no water is needed here — a remark to keep for Level 4.

⚠ Seif 6 is the contested seif of the siman: the Shach notes that some editions carry here a gloss referring to Siman 134, seif 5, where the measure is six parts and not sixty — « והפסקים סותרים זא״ז » (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ו ס״ק י״א). The Bach raised the same difficulty in his קונטרס אחרון and ruled that six parts suffice; the Shach is inclined to emend our text to six, notes that one printing has it so, but that the עט״ז writes sixty twice expressly — and he closes with וצ״ע. Do not, then, recite the figure of seif 6 as settled.

8. The גת of seif 7 and סלק את מינו

The last seif leaves the vessel for the winepress. Wine runs down from the גת into the בור, and a non-Jew touches the stream on its way. The question is no longer the bridge — it is there — but what the press holds to absorb the blow.

The Mehaber sets the condition: « אם יש בחרצנים וזגים וענבים שבגת ששים כנגד הקילוח לא נאסר מה שבגת » (שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ו:ז).

The Rama supplies the reasoning: « דאמרינן סלק את מינו כאילו אינו ושאינו מינו רבה עליו ומבטלו » (רמ״א יו״ד קכ״ו:ז).

■ STEP 1 — SET ASIDE THE SAME KIND The wine already trodden in the גת is of the same kind as the forbidden stream: it is removed from the reckoning, כאילו אינו.

↓ what is left to nullify?

■ STEP 2 — COUNT WHAT IS NOT OF THE KIND The חרצנים (pips), the זגים (skins) and the ענבים (whole grapes) are not wine. Sixty of them against the stream, and what is in the גת is not forbidden.

💡 The Rama's precision about שמרים: wine dregs that have not been steeped and over which twelve months have not passed count as מין במינו with the wine, on the authority of a responsum of the Rashba cited by the Beit Yosef (רמ״א יו״ד קכ״ו:ז). In other words: they do not count towards the sixty. Count pips, skins and grapes — not fresh dregs.

⚖ The Shach leaves seif 7 in צ״ע

Two difficulties, one on the Rama and one on the substance. First, he says, the reasoning of סלק את מינו is needed only according to the Tur, who holds in Siman 134 that stam yeinam too is מין במינו במשהו; but according to the Rama, who holds there that it is nullified in sixty, there is nothing to set aside — the wine, the pips, the skins, the grapes and the dregs all combine to nullify in sixty (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ו ס״ק י״ג).

Second, and this weighs more: the Rashba's very position, followed here by the Mehaber and the Rama, that a stream once touched can be nullified in sixty, the Shach leaves צ״ע לדינא against Tosafot in the last chapter of Avodah Zarah, who confine the prohibition of nitzok to the case where the non-Jew touches the stream as it flows (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ו ס״ק י״ג). Seif 7 is therefore to be held together with its commentaries, never alone.

9. The 6 golden rules

Nitzok connects only to wine forbidden for benefit. The Mehaber writes it into seif 1, and the Shach makes it the key to the siman (שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ו:א ; ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ו ס״ק ו).
A broken stream connects nothing. קיטוף and נפיצה, the remedy the gemara gave the wine sellers and the Rambam set down as law (שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ו:א ; עבודה זרה ע״ב ע״ב).
The link is not passed down a rung — נצוק בר נצוק אינו חבור, by all opinions (שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ו:ג).
The threshold of loss is low. Whatever fits in a קנקן or a cup is a slight loss; beyond that one relies on those who permit — and this leniency belongs to yayin nesekh alone (שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ו:ב ; רמ״א יו״ד קכ״ו:ב).
Pouring wine away is no manner of ניסוך — but a non-Jew touching the stream forbids everything, and bare ground is not a filthy place (שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ו:ד ; ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ו ס״ק ו).
Nitzok is a mixture, not a contact. It never forbids more than a mixture would, and sixty nullify it (רמ״א יו״ד קכ״ו:ה ; ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ו ס״ק ו).

10. Mnemonic — the aide-mémoire « נצוק »

נ-צ-ו-ק — the four letters of the word נצוק

נ — נפסק הקילוח: a broken stream connects nothing. That is the קיטוף closing seif 1 and the נצוק בר נצוק of seif 3 (שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ו:א).
צ — צריך איסור הנאה: there must be wine forbidden for benefit below. Without it there is no nitzok (שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ו:א).
ו — ובהפסד מרובה מותר: once the loss is substantial, the exit of seif 2 opens (שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ו:ב).
ק — קילוח שנגע בו: a non-Jew who touches the stream forbids everything, even wine poured onto refuse (שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ו:ד).

The ladder of cases — from the strictest to the most lenient

עירה לתוך יין נסך האסור בהנאה, בהפסד מועט → the whole upper vessel is forbidden (seif 1)
ישראל מערה לטיט ובא עובד כוכבים ונגע בקלוח → everything is forbidden (seif 4)
כלי שלא הודח ויש בו כדי להטפיח → forbidden by nitzok, but no more than a mixture — stam yeinam nullified in sixty (seif 5)
את שעירה בו, בכלי שלא הודח → forbidden for drinking only (seif 5)
הפסד מרובה → permitted (seif 2)
עירה וקיטף, ונצוק בר נצוק → permitted (seifim 1 and 3)
עובד כוכבים מערה לטיט או לאשפה → permitted, outside and inside (seif 4)
את שעירה ממנו → permitted even for drinking (seif 5)

11. The 5 classic traps

❌ Trap 1 — Treating nitzok as a מגע: this is the error that warps the whole siman. A non-Jew's contact forbids the wine in its own right; nitzok merely attaches the wine above to the wine below, and the regime that follows is that of a mixture. The Taz establishes it in the Rashba's name, and the Rama draws the practical consequence at seif 5: sixty nullify (ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ו ס״ק ו ; רמ״א יו״ד קכ״ו:ה).

❌ Trap 2 — Forgetting the words האסור בהנאה: applying nitzok to wine forbidden only for drinking invents a stringency the siman expressly excludes. The Mehaber inserted those words into the Rambam's language, and the Shach uses them twice — to read seif 1 and to explain the leniency of seif 5 (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ו ס״ק א ; ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ו ס״ק ט).

❌ Trap 3 — Confusing נצוק בר נצוק with any second pouring: seif 3 does not say that every second pouring is permitted. It addresses the case where the lower vessel is forbidden only by nitzok — a derived prohibition. If that vessel holds actual yayin nesekh, we are in seif 1, not seif 3. The Shach and the Taz both describe the precise scene, and it must be reconstructed mentally before the rule is applied (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ו ס״ק ה ; ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ו ס״ק ג).

❌ Trap 4 — Reading seif 4 as a licence to pour away: what permits is not the loss of the wine but the filth of the place, which rules out any appearance of libation. On bare ground the same operation is precisely how they sprinkle before their idol. And the second half of the seif reverses everything: let a non-Jew touch the stream, and the leniency collapses entirely (שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ו:ד ; ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ו ס״ק ו).

❌ Trap 5 — Reciting the figure of seif 6 without its commentaries: the Shach finds there a contradiction between the Mehaber's rulings here and in Siman 134, recalls that the Bach ruled six parts, hesitates to emend the text, and closes in צ״ע (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ו ס״ק י״א). So too at seif 7, where he holds the Rashba's position to be צ״ע לדינא against Tosafot (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ו ס״ק י״ג). Not every seif of the Mehaber is the received halacha.

For halacha le-ma'aseh, ask your Rav.

12. Recap of the 7 seifim — one line each

Seif	Subject	The essential
1	The principle of nitzok, and קיטוף	One who pours wine into a vessel holding a non-Jew's wine that is forbidden for benefit: all the wine in the upper vessel becomes forbidden, since the poured column joins the wine above to the wine below, and we regard the forbidden wine as mixed into the permitted. But if he poured and cut the stream — that is, before the stream reached the forbidden wine he interrupted the flow coming from the permitted wine — it is permitted.
2	The threshold of loss	Nitzok is a connection only where the loss is slight; but where the loss is substantial — for instance if he drew from the barrel into a vessel holding yayin nesekh — it is permitted. Rama: no distinction is made whether there was much wine in the barrel or not, and even if he can sell it to a non-Jew; whatever is in a קנקן or in a cup is called a slight loss. And this holds specifically for yayin nesekh: for other prohibitions, if he can sell it to a non-Jew and there is no substantial loss, it is not called a substantial loss (the conclusion of the תרומת הדשן, siman 204).
3	The second rung	נצוק בר נצוק אינו חבור — a nitzok born of a nitzok is no connection. The seif runs to four words; the Shach and the Taz supply the scene.
4	Pouring wine away	If the non-Jew pours wine from a vessel onto mud, onto a refuse heap or into a filthy place: this is no manner of ניסוך, and everything is permitted, both what went out and what stayed inside. But if a Jew or a non-Jew was pouring thus onto mud or refuse, and a non-Jew came and touched the stream: everything is forbidden.
5	The unrinsed vessel	One who pours wine into a non-Jew's vessel that was not rinsed and has no משקה טופח: what he poured into it is forbidden for drinking, and what he poured out of it is permitted even for drinking. Rama: but if enough is left to moisten, it is forbidden by nitzok (Beit Yosef in the name of Rabbenu Yerucham, the Semag, Tosafot and the Rosh, last chapter of Avodah Zarah); however it forbids no more than if the wine were mixed in, and if it is stam yeinam it is nullified in sixty, as will be explained in Siman 134.
6	The קיתון of water	A קנקן of wine holding a קיתון of water, from which he poured into a צלוחית containing a non-Jew's wine: if the water in the קנקן suffices to nullify the wine in the צלוחית, it is permitted; and the measure of nullification is that there be sixty of the water against it. (the Rama's own opinion) (and see further, Siman 134 seif 5).
7	The גת and the stream touched	A גת from which wine runs down into the בור, and a non-Jew touched the descending stream: if the חרצנים, זגים and ענבים in the גת amount to sixty against the stream, what is in the גת is not forbidden. Rama: for we say סלק את מינו כאילו אינו — set aside its own kind as though it were not there — and what is not of its kind exceeds it and nullifies it. Wine dregs that have not been steeped and over which twelve months have not passed count as מין במינו with wine (Beit Yosef in the name of a responsum of the Rashba).

13. Final flash card

Question	Reflex answer	Source
Wine was poured into a vessel holding yayin nesekh forbidden for benefit?	The whole upper vessel is forbidden	שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ו:א
The stream was cut before reaching the forbidden wine?	There never was a link: permitted	שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ו:א
The loss is substantial?	Permitted — one relies on those who permit	שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ו:ב
How much must be lost for the loss to count as substantial?	More than the contents of a קנקן or a cup	רמ״א יו״ד קכ״ו:ב
And for a food prohibition other than wine?	The possibility of resale means there is no substantial loss	רמ״א יו״ד קכ״ו:ב
The lower vessel is forbidden only by nitzok?	נצוק בר נצוק אינו חבור: permitted	שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ו:ג
A non-Jew pours wine onto a refuse heap?	Permitted, outside and inside	שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ו:ד
Onto bare ground?	That is the very gesture of libation: not permitted	ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ו ס״ק ו
A non-Jew touched the stream being poured away?	Everything is forbidden	שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ו:ד
A non-Jew's unrinsed vessel with no משקה טופח — what is poured in?	Forbidden for drinking	שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ו:ה
And what remains in the upper vessel?	Permitted even for drinking	שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ו:ה
Enough is left to moisten, and it is stam yeinam?	Forbidden by nitzok, but nullified in sixty	רמ״א יו״ד קכ״ו:ה
The קנקן holds a קיתון of water?	Sixty of water are needed against the wine in the צלוחית	שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ו:ו
A non-Jew touched the stream running down from the גת?	Sixty of pips, skins and grapes against the stream, and the גת is saved	שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ו:ז

⚖ The reflex in 3 questions

What is below? Wine forbidden for benefit → nitzok connects. Wine forbidden only for drinking, or a merely absorbed wall → it does not.
Is the stream unbroken? Cut, or derived from another nitzok, it connects no longer.
What stands to be lost, and how much is there against it? A substantial loss opens seif 2; and where the link holds, sixty against the stream nullify it — for nitzok is a mixture, not a contact.

For halacha le-ma'aseh, ask your Rav.

🎓 Recap of the study path

Level	Content	Outcome
🌱 Level 1 — Base	The text of the 7 seifim, translation, step-by-step explanation	Overall understanding
⚡ Level 2 — Lamdan	The definition of nitzok — link or mixture, the dispute of Rashi and Rabbenu Tam, the threshold of substantial loss and the Shach's question on סלק את מינו	In-depth study
✨ Level 3 — Synthesis	Two master tables, golden rules, mnemonic, traps, recap of the seifim	Practical mastery and review
📜 Level 4 — Halacha le-ma'aseh	Practical ruling according to the Shach, the Taz, the Pitchei Teshuva and the poskim	Contemporary application

💡 Suggested next steps:

Review Siman קכ״ו in the Shulchan Aruch itself (Hebrew) with the Shach and the Taz
Study the neighbouring simanim: 125 (a non-Jew's force, from which the Rama already referred here for nitzok) and 127 (is one believed to forbid another's wine)
Continue to Siman 134, to which both seif 5 and seif 6 refer for the measure of nullification
Read the sugya of nitzok in the last chapter of tractate Avodah Zarah, with the Tosafot the Shach sets against the Rashba
Discuss personal cases with a Rav — halacha le-ma'aseh is decided with a Rav

📖 Sources for this siman on Sefaria:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~
DAAT · הרב יוסף חיים סממה
תלמיד חכם · מעביר שיעורים בהלכה ובחסידות
סימן קכ״ו · Level 3 — Synthesis / Review · דין יין שנתערב ביין נסך ודין נצוק חבור
daattorah.com