Avodah Zarah 30

איחלופי כיון דאיכא חותם אחד לא טרח ומזייף

the concern that a gentile may secretly exchange his wine with the wine of a Jew, since there is one seal, the gentile will not exert himself and forge a different seal in order to facilitate the exchange.

תנו רבנן יין מבושל ואלונתית של גוים אסורין אלונתית כברייתא מותרת ואיזו היא אלונתית כדתנן גבי שבת עושין אנומלין ואין עושין אלונתית ואיזו היא אנומלין ואיזו היא אלונתית אנומלין יין ודבש ופלפלין אלונתית יין ישן ומים צלולין ואפרסמון דעבדי לבי מסותא

§ The Gemara discusses the halakha with regard to various types of wine. The Sages taught: Cooked wine and aluntit of gentiles are prohibited; but already prepared aluntit that was made by a Jew before it entered the gentile’s possession is permitted. The Gemara asks: And what is aluntit? It is as we learned in a baraita with regard to Shabbat: One may prepare anomlin, but one may not prepare aluntit. The baraita clarifies: And what is anomlin and what is aluntit? Anomlin is a drink that is a mixture of wine, honey, and pepper. Aluntit is a mixture of aged wine and clear water and balsam, which they prepare for drinking after bathing in a bathhouse to cool down from the heat of the bathhouse. It is prohibited to prepare aluntit on Shabbat because it is a type of remedy.

רבה ורב יוסף דאמרי תרוייהו יין מזוג אין בו משום גילוי יין מבושל אין בו משום ניסוך איבעיא להו יין מבושל יש בו משום גילוי או אין בו משום גילוי תא שמע העיד רבי יעקב בר אידי על יין מבושל שאין בו משום גילוי

Rabba and Rav Yosef both say: Diluted wine is not subject to the halakha of exposure, according to which the consumption of a liquid is prohibited if it is left uncovered; and cooked wine is not subject to the halakha of libation, which prohibits deriving benefit from wine that has been in a gentile’s possession. A dilemma was raised before them: With regard to cooked wine, is it subject to the halakha of exposure, or is it not subject to the halakha of exposure? The Gemara resolves the dilemma: Come and hear: Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi testified about cooked wine and stated that it is not subject to the halakha of exposure.

רבי ינאי בר ישמעאל חלש על לגביה רבי ישמעאל בן זירוד ורבנן לשיולי ביה יתבי וקא מבעיא להו יין מבושל יש בו משום גילוי או אין בו משום גילוי אמר להו רבי ישמעאל בן זירוד הכי אמר רבי שמעון בן לקיש משום גברא רבה ומנו רבי חייא יין מבושל אין בו משום גילוי אמרו ליה נסמוך מחוי להו רבי ינאי בר ישמעאל עלי ועל צוארי

The Gemara cites another proof that cooked wine is not subject to the halakha of exposure. When Rabbi Yannai bar Yishmael became ill, Rabbi Yishmael ben Zeirud and other Sages went to him to inquire about his health. They were seated, and this very dilemma was raised before them: With regard to cooked wine, is it subject to the halakha of exposure, or is it not subject to the halakha of exposure? Rabbi Yishmael ben Zeirud said to them: This is what Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says in the name of a great man. Parenthetically, the Gemara asks: And who is this great man? He is Rabbi Ḥiyya. He said: Cooked wine is not subject to the halakha of exposure. The Sages said to Rabbi Yishmael ben Zeirud: Shall we rely on this claim? Rabbi Yannai bar Yishmael motioned to them: Upon me and upon my neck, i.e., you can certainly rely on this claim.

שמואל ואבלט הוו יתבי אייתו לקמייהו חמרא מבשלא משכיה לידיה אמר ליה שמואל הרי אמרו יין מבושל אין בו משום יין נסך

The Gemara relates another incident: Shmuel and Ablet, a gentile scholar, were sitting together, and others brought cooked wine before them. Ablet withdrew his hand to avoid rendering the wine prohibited to Shmuel. Seeing this, Shmuel said to Ablet that the Sages said: Cooked wine is not subject to the prohibition of wine used for a libation, and therefore you need not withdraw your hand on my account.

אמתיה דרבי חייא איגלויי לה ההוא חמרא מבשלא אתיא לקמיה דרבי חייא אמר לה הרי אמרו יין מבושל אין בו משום גילוי שמעיה דרב אדא בר אהבה איגלי ליה חמרא מזיגא אמר ליה הרי אמרו יין מזוג אין בו משום גילוי

The Gemara cites yet another incident: Rabbi Ḥiyya’s maidservant noticed that a certain container of cooked wine had become exposed. She came before Rabbi Ḥiyya, who said to her that the Sages said: Cooked wine is not subject to the halakha of exposure. Similarly, Rav Adda bar Ahava’s attendant noticed that a certain container of diluted wine had become exposed. Rav Adda bar Ahava said to him that the Sages said: Diluted wine is not subject to the halakha of exposure.

אמר רב פפא לא אמרן אלא דמזיג טובא אבל מזיג ולא מזיג שתי ומזיג ולא מזיג מי שתי והא רבה בר רב הונא הוה קאזיל בארבא והוה נקיט חמרא בהדיה וחזייה לההוא חיויא דצרי ואתי אמר ליה לשמעיה סמי עיניה דדין שקיל קלי מיא שדא ביה וסר לאחוריה

Rav Pappa said: We said that wine is not subject to the halakha of exposure only in a case where it was well diluted, but where it was only partially diluted a snake might still drink from it, and therefore it is prohibited. The Gemara rejects this claim: And is it correct that a snake drinks partially diluted wine? But wasn’t Rabba bar Rav Huna once traveling on a ship while carrying a jug of wine with him, and he saw a certain snake that slithered and approached the wine. He said to his attendant: Remove the eyes of this serpent, i.e., do something that will cause the snake to leave. His attendant took a bit of water and threw it in the wine, and the snake turned away. This indicates that snakes do not drink partially diluted wine.

אחייא מסר נפשיה אמזיגא לא מסר נפשיה

The Gemara rejects this conclusion: For undiluted wine, a snake will risk its life by exposing itself to humans, but for diluted wine, a snake will not risk its life. But in either case, if the wine is left unguarded, a snake will drink from it.

ואמזיגא לא מסר נפשיה והא רבי ינאי הוה בי עכבורי ואמרי ליה בר הדיא הוה בי עכבורי הוו יתבי והוו קא שתו חמרא מזיגא פש להו חמרא בכובא וצרונהי בפרונקא וחזיא לההוא חיויא דשקיל מיא ורמא בכובא עד דמלא בכובא וסליק חמרא עילויה פרונקא ושתי

The Gemara raises a difficulty: And is it true that for diluted wine a snake will not risk its life? But wasn’t Rabbi Yannai once in Bei Akhborei, and some say that it was bar Hadaya who was in Bei Akhborei, and others were sitting with him and drinking diluted wine. When they finished, they had some wine left in the container [bekhuva], and they covered it with a cloth. And then they saw a certain snake take water in its mouth and pour it through the cloth into the container until the liquid filled the container and the wine flowed over the cloth, and the snake drank the overflowing wine. This shows that a snake will risk its life to drink diluted wine.

אמרי דמזיג איהו שתי דמזיגי אחריני לא שתי

The Sages say in response: Wine that the snake itself diluted, it does drink. Wine that another diluted, it does not drink. In other words, a snake does not drink diluted wine unless it was diluted by the snake itself. Accordingly, even partially diluted wine is not subject to the halakha of exposure.

אמר רב אשי ואיתימא רב משרשיא פירוקא לסכנתא אמר רבא הלכתא יין מזוג יש בו משום גילוי ויש בו משום יין נסך יין מבושל אין בו משום גילוי ואין בו משום יין נסך

Rav Ashi says, and some say that it was Rav Mesharshiyya who says: Are you providing a resolution for a situation involving danger? In other words, one may not endanger lives by subscribing to such reasoning. Rava said: The halakha is that diluted wine is subject to the halakha of exposure and is also subject to the prohibition of wine used as a libation for idolatry; cooked wine is not subject to the halakha of exposure and is not subject to the prohibition of wine used for a libation either.

שמעיה דרב חלקיה בר טובי איגליא ההוא קיסתא דמיא והוה ניים גבה אתא לגביה דרב חלקיה בר טובי אמר ליה הרי אמרו אימת ישן עליהן והני מילי ביממא אבל בליליא לא ולא היא לא שנא ביממא ולא שנא בליליא אימת ישן עליהן לא אמרינן

§ After discussing exposed wine, the Gemara addresses the matter of exposed water. The attendant of Rav Ḥilkiya bar Tovi noticed that a certain jug of water had become exposed, and he had been sleeping near it. He went to Rav Ḥilkiya bar Tovi to determine the halakhic status of the exposed water. Rav Ḥilkiya said to him that the Sages said: Fear of a sleeping person is upon them, i.e., snakes will not attempt to drink from a container that is near a person, even if he is asleep. And this matter applies only during the day, but not at night. The Gemara comments: But that is not so. Rather, there is no difference between one who sleeps during the day and one who sleeps during the night. In both cases, we do not say that the fear of a sleeping person is upon the snakes.

רב לא שתי מבי ארמאה אמר לא זהירי בגילוי מבי ארמלתא שתי אמר סירכא דגברא נקיטא

The Gemara presents the opinions of Rav and Shmuel with regard to various sources of water. Rav would not drink water from the house of an Aramean, as he said: They are not careful with regard to exposure. But he would drink water from the house of a widow, as he said: She upholds her late husband’s conventions and ensures that liquids are not left uncovered.

שמואל לא שתי מיא מבי ארמלתא אמר לית לה אימתא דגברא ולא מיכסיא מיא אבל מבי ארמאה שתי נהי דאגילויא לא קפדי אמנקרותא מיהא קפדי איכא דאמרי רב לא שתי מיא מבי ארמאה אבל מבי ארמלתא שתי שמואל לא שתי מיא לא מבי ארמאה ולא מבי ארמלתא

By contrast, Shmuel would not drink water from the house of a widow, as he said: She no longer has the fear of a man upon her, and therefore she does not necessarily cover the water. But he would drink water from the house of an Aramean, as he said: Granted that they are not particular about the halakha of exposure, but in any event they are particular about cleanliness, and will cover it for hygienic reasons, if not halakhic ones. The Gemara cites a different version: Some say that Rav would not drink water from the house of an Aramean, but he would drink water from the house of a widow. Shmuel would not drink water either from the house of an Aramean or from the house of a widow.

אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי שלש יינות הן ואין בהן משום גילוי ואלו הן חד מר מתוק חד טילא חריפא דמצרי זיקי מר ירנקא מתוק חוליא רב חמא מתני לעילויא חד חמר ופלפלין מר אפסינתין מתוק מי בארג

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: There are three kinds of wines that are not subject to the halakha of exposure, and they are: Sharp, bitter, and sweet wines. Sharp is referring to acrid wine [tila] that cracks the jug, due to its acidity. Bitter is referring to yarneka. Sweet is referring to sweetened wine. These three wines that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says are not subject to the halakha of exposure are all of low quality. Rav Ḥama teaches that the three wines are of high quality: Sharp is referring to wine mixed with peppers. Bitter is referring to wine mixed with wormwood [apsintin]. Sweet is referring to mei barg, a choice beverage.

אמר רבי שמעון בן לקיש קרינא אין בו משום גילוי מאי קרינא אמר רבי אבהו חמרא חליא דאתי מעסיא אמר רבא ובמקומו יש בו משום גילוי מאי טעמא חמר מדינה הוא אמר רבא האי חמרא דאקרים עד תלתא יומי יש בו משום גילוי ומשום יין נסך

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: Karina is not subject to the halakha of exposure. The Gemara asks: What is karina? Rabbi Abbahu said: It is sweet wine that comes from Asia [Asya] Minor. Rava says: But in its place of origin it is subject to the halakha of exposure. What is the reason? The reason is that there, it is the wine of the province and snakes do not hesitate to drink from it. Rava said: With regard to this wine that has soured [de’akrim], until three days have passed from when it began to sour, it is subject to the halakha of exposure and is subject to the prohibition of wine used for a libation.

מכאן ואילך אין בו משום גילוי ואין בו משום יין נסך ונהרדעי אמרי אפילו לבתר תלתא יומי חיישינן משום גילוי מאי טעמא זימנין מיקרי שתי

From this point forward, it is not subject to the halakha of exposure and is not subject to the prohibition of wine used for a libation. And the Sages of Neharde’a say: Even after three days, we are concerned with regard to exposure. What is the reason? It is because at times it occurs that a snake drinks even sour wine.

תנו רבנן יין תוסס אין בו משום גילוי וכמה תסיסתו שלשה ימים השחלים אין בהם משום גילוי ובני גולה נהגו בהן איסור ולא אמרן אלא דלית בהו חלא אבל אית בהו חלא מיגרי בהו

§ The Gemara discusses the halakha of exposure with regard to various foods and beverages. The Sages taught: Wine that is still fermenting is not subject to the halakha of exposure. And how long is its fermentation process? It is three days. Cress-based dishes are not subject to the halakha of exposure, but the residents of the Diaspora are accustomed to treating them as prohibited if they were left exposed. And we said this only in a case where the dishes do not contain vinegar; but if they do contain vinegar, the vinegar repels the snakes, and in such a situation even the inhabitants of the Diaspora do not treat them as prohibited.

כותח הבבלי אין בו משום גילוי ובני גולה נהגו בו איסור אמר רב מנשי אי אית ביה נקורי חיישינן אמר רב חייא בר אשי אמר שמואל מי טיף טיף אין בו משום גילוי אמר רב אשי והוא דעביד טיף להדי טיף טיף

The Gemara continues: Babylonian kutaḥ, a popular dip, is not subject to the halakha of exposure, but the residents of the Diaspora are accustomed to treating it as prohibited. Rav Menashei said: If the kutaḥ has indentations in it, we are concerned that they are from a snake’s fangs, and it is therefore prohibited. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi says that Shmuel says: Dripping water is not subject to the halakha of exposure while it is being collected. Rav Ashi said: And that is the halakha only in a case where the dripping occurs one drop immediately after another drop, i.e., continuously, as the snake will not drink from it in that circumstance.

אמר רב חייא בר אשי אמר שמואל פי תאנה אין בו משום גילוי כמאן כי האי תנא דתניא רבי אליעזר אומר אוכל אדם ענבים ותאנים בלילה ואינו חושש משום שנאמר שמר פתאים ה׳

Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi says that Shmuel says: The mouth of a fig is not subject to the halakha of exposure. In accordance with whose opinion is this stated? It is stated in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer said: A person may eat grapes and figs at night, and he need not have cause for concern, as it is stated: “The Lord preserves the simple” (Psalms 116:6). This verse teaches that one need not fear that harm might befall him when he engages in commonplace activities.

אמר רב ספרא משום רבי יהושע דרומא שלשה מיני ארס הן של בחור שוקע של בינוני מפעפע ושל זקן צף למימרא דכמה דקשיש כחוש חיליה והתניא שלשה כל זמן שמזקינין גבורה מתוספת בהן אלו הן דג נחש וחזיר כח אוסופי הוא דקא מוסיף זיהריה קליש

Rav Safra says in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua Deroma: There are three kinds of snake venom: Venom of a young snake, which sinks to the bottom when it is deposited in liquid; venom of a snake of intermediate age, i.e., a snake that is no longer young, which is suspended in the liquid; and venom of an old snake, which floats at the top. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that as a snake ages, the strength of its venom becomes weaker? But isn’t it taught in a baraita that three creatures become stronger as they age, and they are: A fish, a snake, and a pig? The Gemara answers: It is physically that a snake strengthens, but the potency of its venom diminishes.

של בחור שוקע למאי הלכתא דתניא חבית שנתגלה אף על פי ששתו ממנה תשעה ולא מתו לא ישתה ממנה עשירי מעשה היה ששתו ממנו תשעה ולא מתו ושתה עשירי ומת אמר רבי ירמיה זהו שוקע

The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha was it stated that the venom of a young snake sinks? The Gemara explains: As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a barrel that was uncovered, even though nine people drank from it and did not die, the tenth should not drink from it, as the venom may have sunk to the bottom of the barrel. The Gemara relates that there was an incident in which nine people drank from an exposed barrel and did not die, and a tenth subsequently drank from it and died. Rabbi Yirmeya says: This is an example of venom that sinks.

וכן אבטיח שנתגלתה אף על פי שאכלו ממנה תשעה בני אדם ולא מתו לא יאכל ממנה עשירי מעשה היה ואכלו ממנה תשעה ולא מתו ואכל עשירי ומת אמר רבי זהו שוקע

And similarly, with regard to a melon that was exposed, even though nine people ate from it and did not die, the tenth should not eat from it. Again, there was an incident in which nine people ate from a melon and did not die, and the tenth ate from it and died. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: This is an example of venom that sinks.

תנו רבנן מים שנתגלו הרי זה לא ישפכם ברשות הרבים ולא ירביץ בהן את הבית ולא יגבל בהן את הטיט ולא ישקה מהן לא בהמתו ולא בהמת חבירו ולא ירחץ בהן פניו ידיו ורגליו אחרים אומרים מקום שיש סירטא אסור אין סירטא מותר

The Sages taught: With regard to water that was exposed, one may not pour it out in the public thoroughfare, nor settle dust with it by sprinkling it in the house, nor mix clay with it, nor give it to drink to his animal or the animal of another, nor wash his face, hands, or feet with it. Others say: If the part that one is washing is an area of the body that has a crevice in it, it is prohibited to wash it with exposed water, as the venom may seep through the crevice; if the body part does not have a crevice, it is permitted.

אחרים היינו תנא קמא איכא בינייהו גב היד וגב הרגל ורומני דאפי

The Gemara raises a difficulty: The opinion introduced with the phrase: Others say, is identical to the opinion of the first tanna of the baraita. Both hold that one may not wash his face, hands, and feet with exposed water, as these body parts have crevices in them. The Gemara explains: There is a difference between them with regard to the back of the hand and the back of the foot, and the upper part of the face, i.e., the area of the cheekbones. According to the opinion introduced with the phrase: Others say, it is permitted to wash those parts of the body, as they are free of crevices. According to the first tanna it is prohibited, as they are part of the face, hands, and feet.

אמר מר לא ישקה מהן לא בהמתו ולא בהמת חבירו והתניא אבל משקהו לבהמת עצמו כי תניא ההיא לשונרא אי הכי דחבריה נמי דחבריה כחיש דידיה נמי כחיש הדר בריא דחבריה נמי הדר בריא זימנין דבעי לזבונא ומפסיד ליה מיניה

The Master said above concerning exposed water: Nor give it to drink to his animal or the animal of another. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: But one may give exposed water to his own animal to drink? The Gemara answers: When that baraita is taught, it is referring to a cat, as cats are less susceptible to snake venom. The Gemara challenges: If that is so, let him also give the water to the cat of another. The Gemara explains: The venom weakens the cat of another. The Gemara challenges: But doesn’t the venom also weaken his own cat? The Gemara explains: It will later recover. The Gemara challenges: The cat of another will also recover later. The Gemara explains: Although both will eventually recover, there are times that the owner wishes to sell the cat and loses potential profit from the cat’s current weakness.

אמר רבי אסי אמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי יהודה בן בתירא שלשה יינות הן יין נסך אסור בהנאה ומטמא טומאה חמורה בכזית

Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira: There are three kinds of prohibited wines: It is prohibited to derive benefit from wine used for a libation, and the wine imparts severe ritual impurity when it has the volume of an olive-bulk.