Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

March 15, 2018 | 讻状讞 讘讗讚专 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Avodah Zarah 59

讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜爪讚拽 诪讬诐 砖诇 专讘讬诐 讗讬谉 谞讗住专讬谉 讛讗 讚讬讞讬讚 谞讗住专讬谉

as Rabbi Yo岣nan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: Water that belongs to the public is not rendered prohibited. The Gemara infers that since water that belongs to the public is permitted, therefore, in a case where gentiles bow to water that is owned by an individual it is rendered prohibited.

讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚讛讗 诪讞讜讘专讬谉 谞讬谞讛讜 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚转诇砖讬谞讛讜 讙诇讗

The Gemara challenges: But Rabbi Yo岣nan could derive that even water owned by an individual is permitted, as the water is connected to the ground, and worshipping an object that is connected to the ground does not render it prohibited. The Gemara explains: No, it is necessary to derive this halakha from the fact that the water belongs to the public in a case where a wave raised the water and detached it from the ground. In this case worshipping water owned by an individual would render it prohibited.

住讜祝 住讜祝 讗讘谞讬 讛专 砖谞讚诇讚诇讜 谞讬谞讛讜 转住转讬讬诐 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讗住讜专讜转

The Gemara challenges: Nevertheless, the water ultimately falls into the category of objects that were detached without human involvement, such as boulders of a mountain that dislodged on their own. The Gemara (46a) cites a dispute between Rabbi Yo岣nan and the sons of Rabbi 岣yya with regard to boulders that dislodged without human involvement and were then worshipped, and does not conclude who deems the boulders permitted and who deems them prohibited. May it be concluded from Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement that it is Rabbi Yo岣nan who says that the boulders are prohibited?

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讟驻讞讬谞讛讜 讘讬讚讬讛

The Gemara replies: No, even if Rabbi Yo岣nan deems the boulders permitted, his ruling with regard to the water is necessary in a case where one struck the water with his hand and thereby detached it. Since it was detached due to human involvement, if the water was owned by an individual it is prohibited.

专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗讬拽诇注 诇讙讘诇讗 讞讝讗 讘谞讜转 讬砖专讗诇 讚诪讬注讘专谉 诪讙讜讬诐 砖诪诇讜 讜诇讗 讟讘诇讜 讞讝讗 讞诪专讗 讚诪讝讙讜 讙讜讬诐 讜砖转讜 讬砖专讗诇 讞讝讗 转讜专诪讜住讗 讚砖诇拽讬 诇讛讜 讙讜讬诐 讜讗讻诇讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬

Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba happened to come to Gavla. He saw Jewish women there who were impregnated by gentiles who were in the process of converting and were circumcised but had not yet immersed in a ritual bath. He also saw wine that gentiles diluted with water and Jews then drank the wine. He also saw lupines that gentiles were cooking and Jews were eating. And despite seeing all this, he did not say anything to them to correct their actions.

讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 爪讗 讜讛讻专讝 注诇 讘谞讬讛诐 砖讛谉 诪诪讝专讬诐 讜注诇 讬讬谞谉 诪砖讜诐 讬讬谉 谞住讱 讜注诇 转讜专诪讜住谉 诪砖讜诐 讘讬砖讜诇讬 讙讜讬诐 诪砖讜诐 砖讗讬谞谉 讘谞讬 转讜专讛

Later, he came before Rabbi Yo岣nan and told him what he had seen. Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: Go and declare about their children that they have the status of children born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship [mamzerim]. And decree with regard to their wine that it is prohibited as an extension of the prohibition of wine used for a libation. And with regard to their lupines you should declare that they are forbidden due to the prohibition of food cooked by gentiles, as they are not people well-versed in Torah, and any leniency would be misunderstood and applied too extensively.

注诇 讘谞讬讛诐 砖讛诐 诪诪讝专讬诐 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谞讜 讙专 注讚 砖讬诪讜诇 讜讬讟讘讜诇 讜讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讟讘讬诇 讙讜讬 讛讜讗 讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讙讜讬 讜注讘讚 讛讘讗 注诇 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专

The Gemara explains that with regard to declaring about their children that they have the status of mamzerim, Rabbi Yo岣nan conforms to his standard line of reasoning concerning two halakhot. The first is as Rabbi Yo岣nan says: One is never deemed to be a convert until he has been circumcised and has immersed. And since the father has not immersed, he is still considered a gentile. And the second halakha is as Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: In the case of a gentile or a Canaanite slave who engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman, the offspring is a mamzer.

讜讙讝讜专 注诇 讬讬谞诐 诪砖讜诐 讬讬谉 谞住讱 诪砖讜诐 诇讱 诇讱 讗诪专讬谉 谞讝讬专讗 住讞讜专 住讞讜专 诇讻专诪讗 诇讗 转拽专讘

The Gemara continues to explain Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 second instruction to Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba: And decree with regard to their wine that it is prohibited as an extension of the prohibition of wine used for a libation. Although the gentile did not touch the wine when he diluted it, it is prohibited due to the maxim: Go, go, we say to a nazirite; go around and go around, but do not come near to the vineyard.

讜注诇 转讜专诪讜住谉 诪砖讜诐 讘讬砖讜诇讬 讙讜讬诐 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谞谉 讘谞讬 转讜专讛 讟注诪讗 讚讗讬谞谉 讘谞讬 转讜专讛 讛讗 讘谞讬 转讜专讛 砖专讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 砖谞讗讻诇 讻诪讜转 砖讛讜讗 讞讬 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讘讬砖讜诇讬 讙讜讬诐

Lastly, Rabbi Yo岣nan instructed Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba to decree with regard to their lupines that they are forbidden due to the prohibition of food cooked by gentiles, as they are not people well-versed in Torah. The Gemara asks: The reason that the lupines are deemed prohibited is because they are not people well-versed in Torah; but in the case of people who are well-versed in Torah, one can infer that the lupines are permitted. But doesn鈥檛 Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k say that Rav says: Anything that is eaten raw is not subject to the prohibition of food cooked by gentiles, even when cooked by them? Lupines are not eaten raw due to their bitterness, and therefore they are subject to the prohibition of food cooked by gentiles.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讬 讛讱 诇讬砖谞讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 注讜诇讛 诇砖讜诇讞谉 砖诇 诪诇讻讬诐 诇诇驻转 讘讜 讗转 讛驻转 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讘讬砖讜诇讬 讙讜讬诐 讟注诪讗 讚讗讬谞谉 讘谞讬 转讜专讛 讛讗 讘谞讬 转讜专讛 砖专讬

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yo岣nan holds in accordance with that other version of Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k鈥檚 statement, as Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k says that Rav says: Anything that lacks importance and therefore does not appear on the table of kings in order to be eaten together with bread is not subject to the prohibition of food cooked by gentiles. Lupines are not sufficiently important to be served on the table of kings, and therefore they are permitted even if cooked by gentiles. Consequently, the reason for prohibiting the residents of Gavla from eating them is because they are not people well-versed in Torah. But in the case of people well-versed in Torah, the lupines are permitted.

讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘 讻讛谞讗 讙讜讬 诪讛讜 砖讬讜诇讬讱 注谞讘讬诐 诇讙转 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗住讜专 诪砖讜诐 诇讱 诇讱 讗诪专讬谉 谞讝讬专讗 住讞讜专 住讞讜专 诇讻专诪讗 诇讗 转拽专讘 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 讬讬诪专 诇专讘 讻讛谞讗 讙讜讬 砖讛讘讬讗 注谞讘讬诐 诇讙转 讘住诇讬谉

搂 The Sages asked Rav Kahana: With regard to a gentile, what is the halakha concerning the following question: May he bring grapes to the winepress without doing anything else to them? Rav Kahana said to them: It is prohibited by rabbinic decree due to the maxim: Go, go, we say to a nazirite; go around and go around, but do not come near to the vineyard. Rav Yeimar raised an objection to Rav Kahana from a baraita: With regard to a gentile who brought grapes to the winepress in baskets

讜讘讚讜讚讜专讬谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛讬讬谉 诪讝诇祝 注诇讬讛谉 诪讜转专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讘讬讗 拽讗诪专转 讗谞讗 诇讻转讞诇讛 拽讗诪讬谞讗

and in small barrels, even though the grapes are squashed in the process and the wine, i.e., the juice, sprays onto the grapes, nevertheless they are permitted. Rav Kahana said to Rav Yeimar: Are you saying that this is the halakha where the gentile already brought the grapes? The baraita is discussing whether the grapes are prohibited after the fact, whereas I am saying that one should not permit a gentile to bring the grapes ab initio.

讛讛讜讗 讗转专讜讙讗 讚谞驻诇 诇讞讘讬转讗 讚讞诪专讗 讗讬讚专讬 讙讜讬 讜砖拽诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 讗砖讬 谞拽讟讜讛 诇讬讚讬讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 诇砖讻砖讬讱 讘讬讛 讜讘专爪讜讛 注讚 讚砖讬讬驻讗

The Gemara relates: There was a certain etrog that fell into a barrel of wine. A gentile jumped up to take it out of the barrel, thereby unintentionally touching the wine. Rav Ashi said to the people standing there: Hold his hand still, so that he does not stir the wine and render it prohibited, and tip the barrel until the wine is drained into another vessel, and then he may take the etrog.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讬 讚谞住讻讬讛 诇讞诪专讗 讚讬砖专讗诇 讘讻讜讜谞讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讝讘讜谞讬讛 诇讙讜讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗住讜专 砖专讬 诇讬讛 诇诪讬砖拽诇 讚诪讬讛 诪讛讛讜讗 讙讜讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讬拽诇讗 拽诇讬讬讛

Rav Ashi says: In the case of this gentile who intentionally poured a Jew鈥檚 wine as a libation in order to render it prohibited, even though it is prohibited to sell it to another gentile, as one may not derive benefit from it, nevertheless, it is permitted for him to collect its monetary value from that gentile. What is the reason for this? It is considered as though the gentile burned the wine and destroyed it, and he is required to pay for the damage.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞讬讗 讙讜讬 砖谞住讱 讬讬谞讜 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讗住讜专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘讘讗 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 诪转讬专讬谉 诪砖讜诐 砖谞讬 讚讘专讬诐 讗讞讚 砖讗讬谉 诪谞住讻讬谉 讬讬谉 讗诇讗 讘驻谞讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讗讞讚 砖讗讜诪专 诇讜 诇讗 讻诇 讛讬诪谞讱 砖转讗住讜专 讬讬谞讬 诇讗讜谞住讬

Rav Ashi says: From where do I say that this is the halakha? This halakha is derived as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of a gentile who poured a Jew鈥檚 wine as an idolatrous libation but not before an object of idol worship, the wine is prohibited, but Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava and Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira deem it permitted due to two factors: One is that idol worshippers pour wine as an idolatrous libation only before an object of idol worship. And the other one is that the Jew says to the gentile: It is not in your power to render my wine prohibited against my will. Rav Ashi rules in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna. Nevertheless, he derives from the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava and Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira that one may collect compensation from the gentile, whose actions were against the will of the owner.

讛讛讬讗 讞讘讬转讗 讚讞诪专讗 讚讗讬砖转拽讬诇 诇讘专讝讗 讗转讗 讙讜讬 讗讬讚专讬 讗谞讞 讬讚讬讛 注讬诇讜讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讻诇 讚诇讛讚讬 讘专讝讗 讞诪专讗 讗住讬专

搂 There was a certain barrel of wine from which the stopper had been removed and the wine was spilling out. A gentile came, jumped up, and placed his hand on the hole to prevent the wine from leaking. Rav Pappa said: Any wine that is adjacent to the stopper is prohibited, as it was touched by the gentile,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Avodah Zarah 59

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Avodah Zarah 59

讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜爪讚拽 诪讬诐 砖诇 专讘讬诐 讗讬谉 谞讗住专讬谉 讛讗 讚讬讞讬讚 谞讗住专讬谉

as Rabbi Yo岣nan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: Water that belongs to the public is not rendered prohibited. The Gemara infers that since water that belongs to the public is permitted, therefore, in a case where gentiles bow to water that is owned by an individual it is rendered prohibited.

讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚讛讗 诪讞讜讘专讬谉 谞讬谞讛讜 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚转诇砖讬谞讛讜 讙诇讗

The Gemara challenges: But Rabbi Yo岣nan could derive that even water owned by an individual is permitted, as the water is connected to the ground, and worshipping an object that is connected to the ground does not render it prohibited. The Gemara explains: No, it is necessary to derive this halakha from the fact that the water belongs to the public in a case where a wave raised the water and detached it from the ground. In this case worshipping water owned by an individual would render it prohibited.

住讜祝 住讜祝 讗讘谞讬 讛专 砖谞讚诇讚诇讜 谞讬谞讛讜 转住转讬讬诐 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讗住讜专讜转

The Gemara challenges: Nevertheless, the water ultimately falls into the category of objects that were detached without human involvement, such as boulders of a mountain that dislodged on their own. The Gemara (46a) cites a dispute between Rabbi Yo岣nan and the sons of Rabbi 岣yya with regard to boulders that dislodged without human involvement and were then worshipped, and does not conclude who deems the boulders permitted and who deems them prohibited. May it be concluded from Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement that it is Rabbi Yo岣nan who says that the boulders are prohibited?

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讟驻讞讬谞讛讜 讘讬讚讬讛

The Gemara replies: No, even if Rabbi Yo岣nan deems the boulders permitted, his ruling with regard to the water is necessary in a case where one struck the water with his hand and thereby detached it. Since it was detached due to human involvement, if the water was owned by an individual it is prohibited.

专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗讬拽诇注 诇讙讘诇讗 讞讝讗 讘谞讜转 讬砖专讗诇 讚诪讬注讘专谉 诪讙讜讬诐 砖诪诇讜 讜诇讗 讟讘诇讜 讞讝讗 讞诪专讗 讚诪讝讙讜 讙讜讬诐 讜砖转讜 讬砖专讗诇 讞讝讗 转讜专诪讜住讗 讚砖诇拽讬 诇讛讜 讙讜讬诐 讜讗讻诇讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬

Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba happened to come to Gavla. He saw Jewish women there who were impregnated by gentiles who were in the process of converting and were circumcised but had not yet immersed in a ritual bath. He also saw wine that gentiles diluted with water and Jews then drank the wine. He also saw lupines that gentiles were cooking and Jews were eating. And despite seeing all this, he did not say anything to them to correct their actions.

讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 爪讗 讜讛讻专讝 注诇 讘谞讬讛诐 砖讛谉 诪诪讝专讬诐 讜注诇 讬讬谞谉 诪砖讜诐 讬讬谉 谞住讱 讜注诇 转讜专诪讜住谉 诪砖讜诐 讘讬砖讜诇讬 讙讜讬诐 诪砖讜诐 砖讗讬谞谉 讘谞讬 转讜专讛

Later, he came before Rabbi Yo岣nan and told him what he had seen. Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: Go and declare about their children that they have the status of children born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship [mamzerim]. And decree with regard to their wine that it is prohibited as an extension of the prohibition of wine used for a libation. And with regard to their lupines you should declare that they are forbidden due to the prohibition of food cooked by gentiles, as they are not people well-versed in Torah, and any leniency would be misunderstood and applied too extensively.

注诇 讘谞讬讛诐 砖讛诐 诪诪讝专讬诐 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谞讜 讙专 注讚 砖讬诪讜诇 讜讬讟讘讜诇 讜讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讟讘讬诇 讙讜讬 讛讜讗 讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讙讜讬 讜注讘讚 讛讘讗 注诇 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专

The Gemara explains that with regard to declaring about their children that they have the status of mamzerim, Rabbi Yo岣nan conforms to his standard line of reasoning concerning two halakhot. The first is as Rabbi Yo岣nan says: One is never deemed to be a convert until he has been circumcised and has immersed. And since the father has not immersed, he is still considered a gentile. And the second halakha is as Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: In the case of a gentile or a Canaanite slave who engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman, the offspring is a mamzer.

讜讙讝讜专 注诇 讬讬谞诐 诪砖讜诐 讬讬谉 谞住讱 诪砖讜诐 诇讱 诇讱 讗诪专讬谉 谞讝讬专讗 住讞讜专 住讞讜专 诇讻专诪讗 诇讗 转拽专讘

The Gemara continues to explain Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 second instruction to Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba: And decree with regard to their wine that it is prohibited as an extension of the prohibition of wine used for a libation. Although the gentile did not touch the wine when he diluted it, it is prohibited due to the maxim: Go, go, we say to a nazirite; go around and go around, but do not come near to the vineyard.

讜注诇 转讜专诪讜住谉 诪砖讜诐 讘讬砖讜诇讬 讙讜讬诐 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谞谉 讘谞讬 转讜专讛 讟注诪讗 讚讗讬谞谉 讘谞讬 转讜专讛 讛讗 讘谞讬 转讜专讛 砖专讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 砖谞讗讻诇 讻诪讜转 砖讛讜讗 讞讬 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讘讬砖讜诇讬 讙讜讬诐

Lastly, Rabbi Yo岣nan instructed Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba to decree with regard to their lupines that they are forbidden due to the prohibition of food cooked by gentiles, as they are not people well-versed in Torah. The Gemara asks: The reason that the lupines are deemed prohibited is because they are not people well-versed in Torah; but in the case of people who are well-versed in Torah, one can infer that the lupines are permitted. But doesn鈥檛 Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k say that Rav says: Anything that is eaten raw is not subject to the prohibition of food cooked by gentiles, even when cooked by them? Lupines are not eaten raw due to their bitterness, and therefore they are subject to the prohibition of food cooked by gentiles.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讬 讛讱 诇讬砖谞讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 注讜诇讛 诇砖讜诇讞谉 砖诇 诪诇讻讬诐 诇诇驻转 讘讜 讗转 讛驻转 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讘讬砖讜诇讬 讙讜讬诐 讟注诪讗 讚讗讬谞谉 讘谞讬 转讜专讛 讛讗 讘谞讬 转讜专讛 砖专讬

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yo岣nan holds in accordance with that other version of Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k鈥檚 statement, as Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k says that Rav says: Anything that lacks importance and therefore does not appear on the table of kings in order to be eaten together with bread is not subject to the prohibition of food cooked by gentiles. Lupines are not sufficiently important to be served on the table of kings, and therefore they are permitted even if cooked by gentiles. Consequently, the reason for prohibiting the residents of Gavla from eating them is because they are not people well-versed in Torah. But in the case of people well-versed in Torah, the lupines are permitted.

讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘 讻讛谞讗 讙讜讬 诪讛讜 砖讬讜诇讬讱 注谞讘讬诐 诇讙转 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗住讜专 诪砖讜诐 诇讱 诇讱 讗诪专讬谉 谞讝讬专讗 住讞讜专 住讞讜专 诇讻专诪讗 诇讗 转拽专讘 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 讬讬诪专 诇专讘 讻讛谞讗 讙讜讬 砖讛讘讬讗 注谞讘讬诐 诇讙转 讘住诇讬谉

搂 The Sages asked Rav Kahana: With regard to a gentile, what is the halakha concerning the following question: May he bring grapes to the winepress without doing anything else to them? Rav Kahana said to them: It is prohibited by rabbinic decree due to the maxim: Go, go, we say to a nazirite; go around and go around, but do not come near to the vineyard. Rav Yeimar raised an objection to Rav Kahana from a baraita: With regard to a gentile who brought grapes to the winepress in baskets

讜讘讚讜讚讜专讬谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛讬讬谉 诪讝诇祝 注诇讬讛谉 诪讜转专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讘讬讗 拽讗诪专转 讗谞讗 诇讻转讞诇讛 拽讗诪讬谞讗

and in small barrels, even though the grapes are squashed in the process and the wine, i.e., the juice, sprays onto the grapes, nevertheless they are permitted. Rav Kahana said to Rav Yeimar: Are you saying that this is the halakha where the gentile already brought the grapes? The baraita is discussing whether the grapes are prohibited after the fact, whereas I am saying that one should not permit a gentile to bring the grapes ab initio.

讛讛讜讗 讗转专讜讙讗 讚谞驻诇 诇讞讘讬转讗 讚讞诪专讗 讗讬讚专讬 讙讜讬 讜砖拽诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 讗砖讬 谞拽讟讜讛 诇讬讚讬讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 诇砖讻砖讬讱 讘讬讛 讜讘专爪讜讛 注讚 讚砖讬讬驻讗

The Gemara relates: There was a certain etrog that fell into a barrel of wine. A gentile jumped up to take it out of the barrel, thereby unintentionally touching the wine. Rav Ashi said to the people standing there: Hold his hand still, so that he does not stir the wine and render it prohibited, and tip the barrel until the wine is drained into another vessel, and then he may take the etrog.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讬 讚谞住讻讬讛 诇讞诪专讗 讚讬砖专讗诇 讘讻讜讜谞讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讝讘讜谞讬讛 诇讙讜讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗住讜专 砖专讬 诇讬讛 诇诪讬砖拽诇 讚诪讬讛 诪讛讛讜讗 讙讜讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讬拽诇讗 拽诇讬讬讛

Rav Ashi says: In the case of this gentile who intentionally poured a Jew鈥檚 wine as a libation in order to render it prohibited, even though it is prohibited to sell it to another gentile, as one may not derive benefit from it, nevertheless, it is permitted for him to collect its monetary value from that gentile. What is the reason for this? It is considered as though the gentile burned the wine and destroyed it, and he is required to pay for the damage.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞讬讗 讙讜讬 砖谞住讱 讬讬谞讜 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讗住讜专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘讘讗 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 诪转讬专讬谉 诪砖讜诐 砖谞讬 讚讘专讬诐 讗讞讚 砖讗讬谉 诪谞住讻讬谉 讬讬谉 讗诇讗 讘驻谞讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讗讞讚 砖讗讜诪专 诇讜 诇讗 讻诇 讛讬诪谞讱 砖转讗住讜专 讬讬谞讬 诇讗讜谞住讬

Rav Ashi says: From where do I say that this is the halakha? This halakha is derived as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of a gentile who poured a Jew鈥檚 wine as an idolatrous libation but not before an object of idol worship, the wine is prohibited, but Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava and Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira deem it permitted due to two factors: One is that idol worshippers pour wine as an idolatrous libation only before an object of idol worship. And the other one is that the Jew says to the gentile: It is not in your power to render my wine prohibited against my will. Rav Ashi rules in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna. Nevertheless, he derives from the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava and Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira that one may collect compensation from the gentile, whose actions were against the will of the owner.

讛讛讬讗 讞讘讬转讗 讚讞诪专讗 讚讗讬砖转拽讬诇 诇讘专讝讗 讗转讗 讙讜讬 讗讬讚专讬 讗谞讞 讬讚讬讛 注讬诇讜讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讻诇 讚诇讛讚讬 讘专讝讗 讞诪专讗 讗住讬专

搂 There was a certain barrel of wine from which the stopper had been removed and the wine was spilling out. A gentile came, jumped up, and placed his hand on the hole to prevent the wine from leaking. Rav Pappa said: Any wine that is adjacent to the stopper is prohibited, as it was touched by the gentile,

Scroll To Top