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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 26, 2018 | 讬壮 讘谞讬住谉 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 70

Various cases are brought where non-Jews came in contact with the wine and the rabbis determined in each case whether it was聽permitted or forbidden. What is a Jewish worker gets paid in wine from a non-Jew? If a Jew sells wine, at what point does the wine become problematic and therefore does the Jew need to get the money up front?

讬爪专讗 讚讬讬谉 谞住讱 诇讗 转拽讬祝 诇讛讜 讝讜谞讛 讬砖专讗诇讬转 讜讙讜讬诐 诪住讜讘讬谉 讞诪专讗 讗住讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讝讬诇讛 注诇讬讬讛讜 讘转专讬讬讛讜 讙专讬专讗

but the passion for wine used for a libation does not overwhelm their judgment, and they will not allow her to use it for a libation. In the case of a Jewish prostitute and gentiles dining with her, the wine is forbidden. What is the reason? It is that since she is contemptible in their eyes, she is subjugated to them, and they use the wine for a libation without consideration for her.

讛讛讜讗 讘讬转讗 讚讛讜讛 讬转讬讘 讘讬讛 讞诪专讗 讚讬砖专讗诇 注诇 讙讜讬 讗讞讚讛 诇讚砖讗 讘讗驻讬讛 讜讛讜讛 讘讬讝注讗 讘讚砖讗 讗讬砖转讻讞 讙讜讬 讚拽讗讬 讘讬谞讬 讚谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讻诇 讚诇讛讚讬 讘讬讝注讗 砖专讬 讚讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 讜讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 讗住讜专

搂 The Gemara relates: There was an incident involving a certain house where Jews鈥 wine was stored. A gentile entered the house, and he locked the door before the Jew, but there was a crack in the door, and the gentile was found standing between the barrels. Rava said: All the barrels that were opposite the crack through which the gentile could be seen are permitted, because he would have been wary about being seen tampering with them. Barrels on this side and that side of the crack, where the gentile could not be seen, are forbidden, as perhaps the gentile used them for a libation.

讛讛讜讗 讞诪专讗 讚讬砖专讗诇 讚讛讜讛 讬转讬讘 讘讘讬转讗 讚讛讜讛 讚讬讬专 讬砖专讗诇 讘注诇讬讜谞讛 讜讙讜讬 讘转讞转讜谞讛 砖诪注讜 拽诇 转讬讙专讗 谞驻拽讬 拽讚讬诐 讗转讗 讙讜讬 讗讞讚讛 诇讚砖讗 讘讗驻讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 讞诪专讗 砖专讬 诪讬诪专 讗诪专 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚拽讚讬诐 讗转讗讬 讗谞讗 拽讚讬诐 讜讗转讗 讬砖专讗诇 讜讬转讬讘 讘注诇讬讜谞讛 讜拽讗 讞讝讬 诇讬

The Gemara relates: There was an incident involving a certain Jew鈥檚 wine that was stored in the lower story of a house, in which the Jew was living in the upper story and a gentile in the lower story, and the wine could be supervised from the upper story. One day the residents heard a sound of quarreling and went outside. The gentile came back in first and locked the door before the Jew. Rava said: The wine is permitted, because the gentile presumably said to himself: Just as I came back in early, perhaps my neighbor the Jew came back in early and is sitting in the upper story and watching me, and therefore he would not use the wine for a libation.

讛讛讜讗 讗讜砖驻讬讝讗 讚讛讜讛 讬转讬讘 讘讬讛 讞诪专讗 讚讬砖专讗诇 讗讬砖转讻讞 讙讜讬 讚讛讜讛 讬转讬讘 讘讬 讚谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诐 谞转驻住 注诇讬讜 讻讙谞讘 砖专讬 讜讗讬 诇讗 讗住讬专

The Gemara relates: There was an incident involving a certain inn [ushpiza] where a Jew鈥檚 wine was stored, and a gentile was found sitting among the barrels. Rava said: If he was caught as a thief, i.e., if the gentile seemed startled and did not have a good explanation for being there, the wine is permitted, as the gentile was presumably afraid about being caught and would not have used it for a libation. But if not, the wine is forbidden.

讛讛讜讗 讘讬转讗 讚讛讜讛 讬转讬讘 讘讬讛 讞诪专讗 讗讬砖转讻讞 讙讜讬 讚讛讜讛 拽讗讬诐 讘讬 讚谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇讗讬砖转诪讜讟讬 讞诪专讗 讗住讬专 讜讗讬 诇讗 讞诪专讗 砖专讬 诪讬转讬讘讬 谞谞注诇 讛驻讜谞讚拽 讗讜 砖讗诪专 诇讜 砖诪讜专 讗住讜专 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇讗讬砖转诪讜讟讬 诇讗 讘讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇讗讬砖转诪讜讟讬

The Gemara relates: There was an incident involving a certain house where wine was stored. A gentile was found standing among the barrels. Rava said: If he has a way to excuse his entrance to where the wine was stored, the wine is forbidden, but if not, the wine is permitted. The Gemara raises an objection to this ruling from a baraita: If an inn was locked and a gentile was inside, or if the Jew said to the gentile: Safeguard my wine, the wine is forbidden. What, is it not forbidden even if the gentile does not have a way to excuse his entrance? The Gemara answers: No, the baraita is referring to a situation where he does have a way to excuse his entrance; otherwise the wine is permitted.

讛讛讜讗 讬砖专讗诇 讜讙讜讬 讚讛讜讜 讬转讬讘讬 讜拽讗 砖转讜 讞诪专讗 砖诪注 讬砖专讗诇 拽诇 爪诇讜讬讬 讘讬 讻谞讬砖转讗 拽诐 讜讗讝诇 讗诪专 专讘讗 讞诪专讗 砖专讬 诪讬诪专 讗诪专 讛砖转讗 诪讚讻专 诇讬讛 诇讞诪专讬讛 讜讛讚专 讗转讬

The Gemara relates: There was an incident involving a certain Jew and a certain gentile who were sitting and drinking wine. The Jew heard the sound of praying at the synagogue. He got up and went to pray. Rava said: The wine is permitted, because the gentile presumably said to himself: Any moment now he will remember his wine and come back.

讛讛讜讗 讬砖专讗诇 讜讙讜讬 讚讛讜讜 讬转讬讘讬 讘讗专讘讗 砖诪注 讬砖专讗诇 拽诇 砖讬驻讜专讬 讚讘讬 砖讬诪砖讬 谞驻拽 讜讗讝诇 讗诪专 专讘讗 讞诪专讗 砖专讬 诪讬诪专 讗诪专 讛砖转讗 诪讚讻专 诇讬讛 诇讞诪专讬讛 讜讛讚专 讗转讬

The Gemara relates: There was an incident involving a certain Jew and a certain gentile who were sitting on a ship. The Jew heard the sound of the shofar of twilight indicating the beginning of Shabbat. He disembarked and went into town to spend Shabbat there. Rava said: The wine is permitted, because the gentile presumably said to himself: Any moment now he will remember his wine and come back.

讜讗讬 诪砖讜诐 砖讘转讗 讛讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬 讗讬住讜专 讙讬讜专讗 讻讬 讛讜讬谞谉 讘讗专诪讬讜转谉 讗诪专讬谞谉 讬讛讜讚讗讬 诇讗 诪谞讟专讬 砖讘转讗 讚讗讬 诪谞讟专讬 砖讘转讗 讻诪讛 讻讬住讬 拽讗 诪砖转讻讞讬 讘砖讜拽讗 讜诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 讚住讘讬专讗 诇谉 讻专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讛诪讜爪讗 讻讬住 讘砖讘转 诪讜诇讬讻讜 驻讞讜转 驻讞讜转 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转

The Gemara comments: And if one might object that the gentile is presumably not concerned because he knows that the Jew will not return until the end of Shabbat, didn鈥檛 Rava say: Issur the Convert told me: When we were still gentiles, before converting, we used to say: Jews do not actually observe Shabbat, as, if they observe Shabbat, how many wallets would be found in the marketplace that the Jews could not take on Shabbat? And I did not know that we maintain that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yitz岣k, as Rabbi Yitz岣k says: One who finds a wallet on Shabbat may carry it in increments of less than four cubits. Evidently, gentiles assume that a Jew would violate Shabbat for monetary gain.

讛讛讜讗 讗专讬讗 讚讛讜讛 谞讛讬诐 讘诪注爪专转讗 砖诪注 讙讜讬 讟砖讗 讘讬谞讬 讚谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讞诪专讗 砖专讬 诪讬诪专 讗诪专 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚讟砖讬谞讗 讗谞讗 讗讬讟砖讗 谞诪讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗讞讜专讬讬 讜拽讗 讞讝讬 诇讬

The Gemara relates: There was an incident involving a certain lion who roared in a winepress. A gentile heard the roar and was frightened, and he hid among the barrels of wine. Rava said: The wine is permitted, because the gentile presumably said to himself: Just as I am hiding, a Jew might also be hiding behind me and see me.

讛谞讛讜 讙谞讘讬 讚住诇拽讬 诇驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 讜驻转讞讜 讞讘讬转讗 讟讜讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讞诪专讗 砖专讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 专讜讘讗 讙谞讘讬 讬砖专讗诇 谞讬谞讛讜 讛讜讛 注讜讘讚讗 讘谞讛专讚注讬 讜讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讞诪专讗 砖专讬

The Gemara relates: There was an incident involving certain thieves who came to Pumbedita and opened many barrels of wine. Rava said: The wine is permitted. What is the reason? Most of the thieves in Pumbedita are Jews, and the halakha follows the majority, and therefore the wine is not rendered forbidden. There was a similar incident in Neharde鈥檃, and Shmuel said: The wine is permitted.

讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗诪专 住驻拽 讘讬讗讛 讟讛讜专

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this? Perhaps it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says with regard to cases of uncertainty concerning ritual purity that if the uncertainty is with regard to a person鈥檚 entry into a certain place, he is deemed pure.

讚转谞谉 讛谞讻谞住 诇讘拽注讛 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讜讟讜诪讗讛 讘砖讚讛 驻诇讜谞讬转 讜讗诪专 讛诇讻转讬 讘诪拽讜诐 讛诇讝 讜讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讗诐 谞讻谞住转讬 诇讗讜转讛 砖讚讛 讗诐 诇讗 谞讻谞住转讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 住驻拽 讘讬讗讛 讟讛讜专 住驻拽 诪讙注 讟诪讗

This is as we learned in a mishna (Teharot 6:5): With regard to one who enters into a valley during the rainy season, i.e., winter, when people generally do not enter this area, and there was ritual impurity in such and such a field, and he said: I know I walked to that place, i.e., I walked in the valley, but I do not know whether I entered that field where the ritual impurity was or whether I did not enter, Rabbi Eliezer says: In a case of uncertainty with regard to entry, i.e., it is uncertain whether he entered the area where the ritual impurity is located, he is ritually pure. But if he certainly entered the area where the ritual impurity is located and the uncertainty pertains to contact with the source of ritual impurity, he is ritually impure. Apparently, the ruling of Shmuel, that in a case where it is uncertain whether gentile thieves entered the house at all the wine is permitted, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

诇讗 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讚驻转讞讬 诇砖讜诐 诪诪讜谞讗 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 住驻拽 住驻讬拽讗

The Gemara rejects this: No, it is different there, with regard to the wine barrels. Since there are thieves who open barrels for the sake of perhaps finding money in them and are not interested in the wine, it is a case of compound uncertainty, as it is uncertain whether the thieves were gentiles or Jews, and even if they were gentiles, it is uncertain whether or not they touched the wine. In a case of compound uncertainty, everyone agrees that the wine is not forbidden.

讛讛讬讗 专讘讬转讗 讚讗讬砖转讻讞 讚讛讜转 讘讬 讚谞讬 讜讛讜转 谞拽讬讟讗 讗讜驻讬讗 讘讬讚讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 讞诪专讗 砖专讬 讗讬诪专 诪讙讘讛 讚讞讘讬转讗 砖拽诇转讬讛 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讬讻讗 转讜 讗讬诪专 讗转专诪讜讬讬 讗转专诪讬 诇讛

The Gemara relates: There was an incident involving a certain gentile girl who was found among wine barrels and she was holding wine froth in her hand. Rava said: The wine is permitted, as it is reasonable to say that she took it from the outside of the barrel and not from inside the barrel. And even if there is no more of the froth on the outside of the barrel, it is reasonable to say that she happened upon the froth while it was still there, even though it is no longer there.

讛讛讜讗 驻讜诇诪讜住讗 讚住诇讬拽 诇谞讛专讚注讗 驻转讞讜 讞讘讬转讗 讟讜讘讗 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 注讜讘讚讗 讛讜讛 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜砖专讗 讜诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗诪专 住驻拽 讘讬讗讛 讟讛讜专 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚住讘专 专讜讘讗 讚讗讝诇讬 讘讛讚讬 驻讜诇诪讜住讗 讬砖专讗诇 谞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara relates: There was an incident involving a certain army [pulmusa] that entered Neharde鈥檃 and opened many barrels of wine. When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: There was a similar incident that was brought before Rabbi Elazar, and he deemed the wine permitted. But I do not know whether he permitted it because he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says: Concerning uncertainty with regard to entry, the person or item is ritually pure, or whether he permitted it because he maintains that most of those who went with that army were Jews, i.e., that although it was a gentile army, the ancillaries were mostly Jews.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讗讬 住驻拽 讘讬讗讛 住驻拽 诪讙注 讛讜讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诪驻转讞讬 讟讜讘讗 讗讬诪讗 讗讚注转讗 讚诪诪讜谞讗 驻转讞讜 讜讻住驻拽 讘讬讗讛 讚诪讬

The Gemara asks: If that is so, if he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, why did he permit the wine? Is this a case of uncertainty with regard to entry? It is clear that the ancillaries came and opened the barrels, so it is a case of uncertainty with regard to contact, i.e., whether they touched the wine or not, and Rabbi Eliezer agrees that such a case is treated stringently. The Gemara answers: Since they opened many barrels, it is reasonable to say that they opened the barrels only with the intention of finding money and had no interest in the wine itself. And therefore it is similar to a case of uncertainty with regard to entry.

讛讛讬讗 诪住讜讘讬转讗 讚诪住专讛 诇讛 讗讬拽诇讬讚讗 诪驻转讞讛 诇讙讜讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 注讜讘讚讗 讛讜讛 讘讬 诪讚专砖讗 讜讗诪专讜 诇讗 诪住专讛 诇讛 讗诇讗 砖诪讬专转 诪驻转讞 讘诇讘讚

The Gemara relates: There was an incident involving a certain female owner of a wine shop who transferred the key [iklida] to the door of her wine shop to a gentile woman. Rabbi Yitz岣k said that Rabbi Elazar said: There was a similar incident that was brought before the Sages in the study hall, and they said: She transferred to her the responsibility for safeguarding the key alone but did not authorize her to enter the tavern, so there is no concern that she entered there.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讛诪讜住专 诪驻转讞讜转 诇注诐 讛讗专抓 讟讛专讜转讬讜 讟讛讜专讜转 诇驻讬 砖诇讗 诪住专 诇讜 讗诇讗 砖诪讬专转 诪驻转讞 讘诇讘讚 讛砖转讗 讟讛专讜转讬讜 讟讛讜专讜转 讬讬谉 谞住讱 诪讬讘注讬讗

Abaye said: We learn this halakha in a mishna as well (Teharot 7:1): In the case of one who transferred keys to one who is unreliable with regard to ritual impurity [am ha鈥檃retz], even though contact with an am ha鈥檃retz renders pure items impure, his pure items are pure, because he transferred to the am ha鈥檃retz the responsibility for safeguarding the key alone and did not authorize him to enter. Now that the mishna has determined that his pure items are pure, is it necessary to state that this principle with regard to the halakhot of wine used for a libation?

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讟讛专讜转 讗诇讬诪讬 诪讬讬谉 谞住讱 讗讬谉 讚讗讬转诪专 讞爪专 砖讞诇拽讛 讘诪住讬驻住 讗诪专 专讘 讟讛专讜转讬讜 讟诪讗讜转 讜讘讙讜讬 讗讬谞讜 注讜砖讛 讬讬谉 谞住讱 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗祝 讟讛专讜转讬讜 讟讛讜专讜转

The Gemara asks with regard to Abaye鈥檚 reasoning: Is this to say that the halakhot of ritually pure items are more stringent than those concerning wine used for a libation? The Gemara answers: Indeed, that is so. As it was stated that there was a dispute with regard to a courtyard whose owners divided it among themselves with a low partition [meseifas]. Rav says: If one鈥檚 neighbor on the other side of the partition is an am ha鈥檃retz, one鈥檚 pure items that he leaves in the courtyard are rendered impure, but in the case of a gentile neighbor, this does not render his wine an idolatrous libation. And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: His pure items remain pure as well. Evidently, Rav considers the halakhot of purity more stringent than those of wine used for a libation.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛驻谞讬诪讬转 砖诇 讞讘专 讜讛讞讬爪讜谞讛 砖诇 注诐 讛讗专抓 讗讜转讜 讞讘专 砖讜讟讞 砖诐 驻讬专讜转 讜诪谞讬讞 砖诐 讻诇讬诐 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讬讚讜 砖诇 注诐 讛讗专抓 诪讙注转 诇砖诐 拽砖讬讗 诇专讘

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rav from a baraita: If the inner courtyard belongs to a 岣ver, i.e., one devoted to the meticulous observance of mitzvot, especially the halakhot of ritual purity, teruma, and tithes, and the outer courtyard to an am ha鈥檃retz, that 岣ver may lay out his produce there, in the inner courtyard, and place his vessels there, without concern that the am ha鈥檃retz will touch them and render them impure. And this applies even if the hand of the am ha鈥檃retz can reach there. This poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rav, who holds that even in a situation where there is a partition there is concern about contact with an am ha鈥檃retz.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 砖谞转驻住 注诇讬讜 讻讙谞讘

The Gemara answers that Rav could have said to you: It is different there, as were the am ha鈥檃retz to tamper with the produce, he could be caught and accused as a thief, as he has no business being in the inner courtyard. Therefore, there is no concern that he will tamper with it.

转讗 砖诪注 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讙讙讜 砖诇 讞讘专 诇诪注诇讛 诪讙讙讜 砖诇 注诐 讛讗专抓 讗讜转讜 讞讘专 砖讜讟讞 砖诐 驻讬专讜转 讜诪谞讬讞 砖诐 讻诇讬诐 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 转讛讗 讬讚讜 砖诇 注诐 讛讗专抓 诪讙注转 诇砖诐 拽砖讬讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear support for Rav鈥檚 opinion from a baraita (Tosefta, Teharot 9:11): Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If the roof of a 岣ver is above the roof of his neighbor who is an am ha鈥檃retz, that 岣ver may lay out produce there and place vessels there, provided that the hand of the am ha鈥檃retz cannot reach there; but if it is within his reach, the pure items of the 岣ver are rendered impure. This poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who deems permitted pure items in a courtyard divided by a low partition.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇讗讬砖转诪讜讟讬 诪讬诪专 讗诪专 讗讬诪爪讜专讬 拽讗 诪诪爪专讗

The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yo岣nan could have said to you: It is different there, as were the am ha鈥檃retz to be discovered reaching up to the upper roof, he has a way to excuse his behavior by saying: I merely stretched myself; I was not intending to tamper with anything.

转讗 砖诪注 讙讙讜 砖诇 讞讘专 讘爪讚 讙讙讜 砖诇 注诐 讛讗专抓 讗讜转讜 讞讘专 砖讜讟讞 砖诐 驻讬专讜转 讜诪谞讬讞 砖诐 讻诇讬诐 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讬讚讜 砖诇 注诐 讛讗专抓 诪讙注转 诇砖诐 拽砖讬讗 诇专讘 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 诇讗讜 讗讬讻讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚拽讗讬 讻讜讜转讬 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

Come and hear that which is taught in that same baraita: If the roof of a 岣ver is beside the roof of an am ha鈥檃retz, that 岣ver may lay out produce there and place vessels there, even if hand of the am ha鈥檃retz can reach there. This poses a difficulty to the statement of Rav. The Gemara answers that Rav could have said to you: Isn鈥檛 there the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel, which stands in accordance with my opinion with regard to roofs that are next to one another? What I say is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel.

诪转谞讬壮 讘讜诇砖转 砖谞讻谞住讛 诇注讬专 讘砖注转 砖诇讜诐 讞讘讬讜转 驻转讜讞讜转 讗住讜专讜转 住转讜诪讜转 诪讜转专讜转 讘砖注转 诪诇讞诪讛 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 诪讜转专讜转 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 驻谞讗讬 诇谞住讱

MISHNA: In the case of a military unit [boleshet] that entered a city, if it entered during peacetime, then after the soldiers leave the open barrels of wine are forbidden, but the sealed barrels are permitted. If the unit entered in wartime, both these barrels and those barrels are permitted, because in wartime there is no time to pour wine for libations, and one can be certain that the soldiers did not do so.

  • 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 70

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Avodah Zarah 70

讬爪专讗 讚讬讬谉 谞住讱 诇讗 转拽讬祝 诇讛讜 讝讜谞讛 讬砖专讗诇讬转 讜讙讜讬诐 诪住讜讘讬谉 讞诪专讗 讗住讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讝讬诇讛 注诇讬讬讛讜 讘转专讬讬讛讜 讙专讬专讗

but the passion for wine used for a libation does not overwhelm their judgment, and they will not allow her to use it for a libation. In the case of a Jewish prostitute and gentiles dining with her, the wine is forbidden. What is the reason? It is that since she is contemptible in their eyes, she is subjugated to them, and they use the wine for a libation without consideration for her.

讛讛讜讗 讘讬转讗 讚讛讜讛 讬转讬讘 讘讬讛 讞诪专讗 讚讬砖专讗诇 注诇 讙讜讬 讗讞讚讛 诇讚砖讗 讘讗驻讬讛 讜讛讜讛 讘讬讝注讗 讘讚砖讗 讗讬砖转讻讞 讙讜讬 讚拽讗讬 讘讬谞讬 讚谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讻诇 讚诇讛讚讬 讘讬讝注讗 砖专讬 讚讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 讜讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 讗住讜专

搂 The Gemara relates: There was an incident involving a certain house where Jews鈥 wine was stored. A gentile entered the house, and he locked the door before the Jew, but there was a crack in the door, and the gentile was found standing between the barrels. Rava said: All the barrels that were opposite the crack through which the gentile could be seen are permitted, because he would have been wary about being seen tampering with them. Barrels on this side and that side of the crack, where the gentile could not be seen, are forbidden, as perhaps the gentile used them for a libation.

讛讛讜讗 讞诪专讗 讚讬砖专讗诇 讚讛讜讛 讬转讬讘 讘讘讬转讗 讚讛讜讛 讚讬讬专 讬砖专讗诇 讘注诇讬讜谞讛 讜讙讜讬 讘转讞转讜谞讛 砖诪注讜 拽诇 转讬讙专讗 谞驻拽讬 拽讚讬诐 讗转讗 讙讜讬 讗讞讚讛 诇讚砖讗 讘讗驻讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 讞诪专讗 砖专讬 诪讬诪专 讗诪专 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚拽讚讬诐 讗转讗讬 讗谞讗 拽讚讬诐 讜讗转讗 讬砖专讗诇 讜讬转讬讘 讘注诇讬讜谞讛 讜拽讗 讞讝讬 诇讬

The Gemara relates: There was an incident involving a certain Jew鈥檚 wine that was stored in the lower story of a house, in which the Jew was living in the upper story and a gentile in the lower story, and the wine could be supervised from the upper story. One day the residents heard a sound of quarreling and went outside. The gentile came back in first and locked the door before the Jew. Rava said: The wine is permitted, because the gentile presumably said to himself: Just as I came back in early, perhaps my neighbor the Jew came back in early and is sitting in the upper story and watching me, and therefore he would not use the wine for a libation.

讛讛讜讗 讗讜砖驻讬讝讗 讚讛讜讛 讬转讬讘 讘讬讛 讞诪专讗 讚讬砖专讗诇 讗讬砖转讻讞 讙讜讬 讚讛讜讛 讬转讬讘 讘讬 讚谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诐 谞转驻住 注诇讬讜 讻讙谞讘 砖专讬 讜讗讬 诇讗 讗住讬专

The Gemara relates: There was an incident involving a certain inn [ushpiza] where a Jew鈥檚 wine was stored, and a gentile was found sitting among the barrels. Rava said: If he was caught as a thief, i.e., if the gentile seemed startled and did not have a good explanation for being there, the wine is permitted, as the gentile was presumably afraid about being caught and would not have used it for a libation. But if not, the wine is forbidden.

讛讛讜讗 讘讬转讗 讚讛讜讛 讬转讬讘 讘讬讛 讞诪专讗 讗讬砖转讻讞 讙讜讬 讚讛讜讛 拽讗讬诐 讘讬 讚谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇讗讬砖转诪讜讟讬 讞诪专讗 讗住讬专 讜讗讬 诇讗 讞诪专讗 砖专讬 诪讬转讬讘讬 谞谞注诇 讛驻讜谞讚拽 讗讜 砖讗诪专 诇讜 砖诪讜专 讗住讜专 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇讗讬砖转诪讜讟讬 诇讗 讘讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇讗讬砖转诪讜讟讬

The Gemara relates: There was an incident involving a certain house where wine was stored. A gentile was found standing among the barrels. Rava said: If he has a way to excuse his entrance to where the wine was stored, the wine is forbidden, but if not, the wine is permitted. The Gemara raises an objection to this ruling from a baraita: If an inn was locked and a gentile was inside, or if the Jew said to the gentile: Safeguard my wine, the wine is forbidden. What, is it not forbidden even if the gentile does not have a way to excuse his entrance? The Gemara answers: No, the baraita is referring to a situation where he does have a way to excuse his entrance; otherwise the wine is permitted.

讛讛讜讗 讬砖专讗诇 讜讙讜讬 讚讛讜讜 讬转讬讘讬 讜拽讗 砖转讜 讞诪专讗 砖诪注 讬砖专讗诇 拽诇 爪诇讜讬讬 讘讬 讻谞讬砖转讗 拽诐 讜讗讝诇 讗诪专 专讘讗 讞诪专讗 砖专讬 诪讬诪专 讗诪专 讛砖转讗 诪讚讻专 诇讬讛 诇讞诪专讬讛 讜讛讚专 讗转讬

The Gemara relates: There was an incident involving a certain Jew and a certain gentile who were sitting and drinking wine. The Jew heard the sound of praying at the synagogue. He got up and went to pray. Rava said: The wine is permitted, because the gentile presumably said to himself: Any moment now he will remember his wine and come back.

讛讛讜讗 讬砖专讗诇 讜讙讜讬 讚讛讜讜 讬转讬讘讬 讘讗专讘讗 砖诪注 讬砖专讗诇 拽诇 砖讬驻讜专讬 讚讘讬 砖讬诪砖讬 谞驻拽 讜讗讝诇 讗诪专 专讘讗 讞诪专讗 砖专讬 诪讬诪专 讗诪专 讛砖转讗 诪讚讻专 诇讬讛 诇讞诪专讬讛 讜讛讚专 讗转讬

The Gemara relates: There was an incident involving a certain Jew and a certain gentile who were sitting on a ship. The Jew heard the sound of the shofar of twilight indicating the beginning of Shabbat. He disembarked and went into town to spend Shabbat there. Rava said: The wine is permitted, because the gentile presumably said to himself: Any moment now he will remember his wine and come back.

讜讗讬 诪砖讜诐 砖讘转讗 讛讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬 讗讬住讜专 讙讬讜专讗 讻讬 讛讜讬谞谉 讘讗专诪讬讜转谉 讗诪专讬谞谉 讬讛讜讚讗讬 诇讗 诪谞讟专讬 砖讘转讗 讚讗讬 诪谞讟专讬 砖讘转讗 讻诪讛 讻讬住讬 拽讗 诪砖转讻讞讬 讘砖讜拽讗 讜诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 讚住讘讬专讗 诇谉 讻专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讛诪讜爪讗 讻讬住 讘砖讘转 诪讜诇讬讻讜 驻讞讜转 驻讞讜转 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转

The Gemara comments: And if one might object that the gentile is presumably not concerned because he knows that the Jew will not return until the end of Shabbat, didn鈥檛 Rava say: Issur the Convert told me: When we were still gentiles, before converting, we used to say: Jews do not actually observe Shabbat, as, if they observe Shabbat, how many wallets would be found in the marketplace that the Jews could not take on Shabbat? And I did not know that we maintain that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yitz岣k, as Rabbi Yitz岣k says: One who finds a wallet on Shabbat may carry it in increments of less than four cubits. Evidently, gentiles assume that a Jew would violate Shabbat for monetary gain.

讛讛讜讗 讗专讬讗 讚讛讜讛 谞讛讬诐 讘诪注爪专转讗 砖诪注 讙讜讬 讟砖讗 讘讬谞讬 讚谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讞诪专讗 砖专讬 诪讬诪专 讗诪专 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚讟砖讬谞讗 讗谞讗 讗讬讟砖讗 谞诪讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗讞讜专讬讬 讜拽讗 讞讝讬 诇讬

The Gemara relates: There was an incident involving a certain lion who roared in a winepress. A gentile heard the roar and was frightened, and he hid among the barrels of wine. Rava said: The wine is permitted, because the gentile presumably said to himself: Just as I am hiding, a Jew might also be hiding behind me and see me.

讛谞讛讜 讙谞讘讬 讚住诇拽讬 诇驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 讜驻转讞讜 讞讘讬转讗 讟讜讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讞诪专讗 砖专讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 专讜讘讗 讙谞讘讬 讬砖专讗诇 谞讬谞讛讜 讛讜讛 注讜讘讚讗 讘谞讛专讚注讬 讜讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讞诪专讗 砖专讬

The Gemara relates: There was an incident involving certain thieves who came to Pumbedita and opened many barrels of wine. Rava said: The wine is permitted. What is the reason? Most of the thieves in Pumbedita are Jews, and the halakha follows the majority, and therefore the wine is not rendered forbidden. There was a similar incident in Neharde鈥檃, and Shmuel said: The wine is permitted.

讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗诪专 住驻拽 讘讬讗讛 讟讛讜专

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this? Perhaps it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says with regard to cases of uncertainty concerning ritual purity that if the uncertainty is with regard to a person鈥檚 entry into a certain place, he is deemed pure.

讚转谞谉 讛谞讻谞住 诇讘拽注讛 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讜讟讜诪讗讛 讘砖讚讛 驻诇讜谞讬转 讜讗诪专 讛诇讻转讬 讘诪拽讜诐 讛诇讝 讜讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讗诐 谞讻谞住转讬 诇讗讜转讛 砖讚讛 讗诐 诇讗 谞讻谞住转讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 住驻拽 讘讬讗讛 讟讛讜专 住驻拽 诪讙注 讟诪讗

This is as we learned in a mishna (Teharot 6:5): With regard to one who enters into a valley during the rainy season, i.e., winter, when people generally do not enter this area, and there was ritual impurity in such and such a field, and he said: I know I walked to that place, i.e., I walked in the valley, but I do not know whether I entered that field where the ritual impurity was or whether I did not enter, Rabbi Eliezer says: In a case of uncertainty with regard to entry, i.e., it is uncertain whether he entered the area where the ritual impurity is located, he is ritually pure. But if he certainly entered the area where the ritual impurity is located and the uncertainty pertains to contact with the source of ritual impurity, he is ritually impure. Apparently, the ruling of Shmuel, that in a case where it is uncertain whether gentile thieves entered the house at all the wine is permitted, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

诇讗 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讚驻转讞讬 诇砖讜诐 诪诪讜谞讗 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 住驻拽 住驻讬拽讗

The Gemara rejects this: No, it is different there, with regard to the wine barrels. Since there are thieves who open barrels for the sake of perhaps finding money in them and are not interested in the wine, it is a case of compound uncertainty, as it is uncertain whether the thieves were gentiles or Jews, and even if they were gentiles, it is uncertain whether or not they touched the wine. In a case of compound uncertainty, everyone agrees that the wine is not forbidden.

讛讛讬讗 专讘讬转讗 讚讗讬砖转讻讞 讚讛讜转 讘讬 讚谞讬 讜讛讜转 谞拽讬讟讗 讗讜驻讬讗 讘讬讚讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 讞诪专讗 砖专讬 讗讬诪专 诪讙讘讛 讚讞讘讬转讗 砖拽诇转讬讛 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讬讻讗 转讜 讗讬诪专 讗转专诪讜讬讬 讗转专诪讬 诇讛

The Gemara relates: There was an incident involving a certain gentile girl who was found among wine barrels and she was holding wine froth in her hand. Rava said: The wine is permitted, as it is reasonable to say that she took it from the outside of the barrel and not from inside the barrel. And even if there is no more of the froth on the outside of the barrel, it is reasonable to say that she happened upon the froth while it was still there, even though it is no longer there.

讛讛讜讗 驻讜诇诪讜住讗 讚住诇讬拽 诇谞讛专讚注讗 驻转讞讜 讞讘讬转讗 讟讜讘讗 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 注讜讘讚讗 讛讜讛 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜砖专讗 讜诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗诪专 住驻拽 讘讬讗讛 讟讛讜专 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚住讘专 专讜讘讗 讚讗讝诇讬 讘讛讚讬 驻讜诇诪讜住讗 讬砖专讗诇 谞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara relates: There was an incident involving a certain army [pulmusa] that entered Neharde鈥檃 and opened many barrels of wine. When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: There was a similar incident that was brought before Rabbi Elazar, and he deemed the wine permitted. But I do not know whether he permitted it because he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says: Concerning uncertainty with regard to entry, the person or item is ritually pure, or whether he permitted it because he maintains that most of those who went with that army were Jews, i.e., that although it was a gentile army, the ancillaries were mostly Jews.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讗讬 住驻拽 讘讬讗讛 住驻拽 诪讙注 讛讜讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诪驻转讞讬 讟讜讘讗 讗讬诪讗 讗讚注转讗 讚诪诪讜谞讗 驻转讞讜 讜讻住驻拽 讘讬讗讛 讚诪讬

The Gemara asks: If that is so, if he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, why did he permit the wine? Is this a case of uncertainty with regard to entry? It is clear that the ancillaries came and opened the barrels, so it is a case of uncertainty with regard to contact, i.e., whether they touched the wine or not, and Rabbi Eliezer agrees that such a case is treated stringently. The Gemara answers: Since they opened many barrels, it is reasonable to say that they opened the barrels only with the intention of finding money and had no interest in the wine itself. And therefore it is similar to a case of uncertainty with regard to entry.

讛讛讬讗 诪住讜讘讬转讗 讚诪住专讛 诇讛 讗讬拽诇讬讚讗 诪驻转讞讛 诇讙讜讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 注讜讘讚讗 讛讜讛 讘讬 诪讚专砖讗 讜讗诪专讜 诇讗 诪住专讛 诇讛 讗诇讗 砖诪讬专转 诪驻转讞 讘诇讘讚

The Gemara relates: There was an incident involving a certain female owner of a wine shop who transferred the key [iklida] to the door of her wine shop to a gentile woman. Rabbi Yitz岣k said that Rabbi Elazar said: There was a similar incident that was brought before the Sages in the study hall, and they said: She transferred to her the responsibility for safeguarding the key alone but did not authorize her to enter the tavern, so there is no concern that she entered there.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讛诪讜住专 诪驻转讞讜转 诇注诐 讛讗专抓 讟讛专讜转讬讜 讟讛讜专讜转 诇驻讬 砖诇讗 诪住专 诇讜 讗诇讗 砖诪讬专转 诪驻转讞 讘诇讘讚 讛砖转讗 讟讛专讜转讬讜 讟讛讜专讜转 讬讬谉 谞住讱 诪讬讘注讬讗

Abaye said: We learn this halakha in a mishna as well (Teharot 7:1): In the case of one who transferred keys to one who is unreliable with regard to ritual impurity [am ha鈥檃retz], even though contact with an am ha鈥檃retz renders pure items impure, his pure items are pure, because he transferred to the am ha鈥檃retz the responsibility for safeguarding the key alone and did not authorize him to enter. Now that the mishna has determined that his pure items are pure, is it necessary to state that this principle with regard to the halakhot of wine used for a libation?

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讟讛专讜转 讗诇讬诪讬 诪讬讬谉 谞住讱 讗讬谉 讚讗讬转诪专 讞爪专 砖讞诇拽讛 讘诪住讬驻住 讗诪专 专讘 讟讛专讜转讬讜 讟诪讗讜转 讜讘讙讜讬 讗讬谞讜 注讜砖讛 讬讬谉 谞住讱 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗祝 讟讛专讜转讬讜 讟讛讜专讜转

The Gemara asks with regard to Abaye鈥檚 reasoning: Is this to say that the halakhot of ritually pure items are more stringent than those concerning wine used for a libation? The Gemara answers: Indeed, that is so. As it was stated that there was a dispute with regard to a courtyard whose owners divided it among themselves with a low partition [meseifas]. Rav says: If one鈥檚 neighbor on the other side of the partition is an am ha鈥檃retz, one鈥檚 pure items that he leaves in the courtyard are rendered impure, but in the case of a gentile neighbor, this does not render his wine an idolatrous libation. And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: His pure items remain pure as well. Evidently, Rav considers the halakhot of purity more stringent than those of wine used for a libation.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛驻谞讬诪讬转 砖诇 讞讘专 讜讛讞讬爪讜谞讛 砖诇 注诐 讛讗专抓 讗讜转讜 讞讘专 砖讜讟讞 砖诐 驻讬专讜转 讜诪谞讬讞 砖诐 讻诇讬诐 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讬讚讜 砖诇 注诐 讛讗专抓 诪讙注转 诇砖诐 拽砖讬讗 诇专讘

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rav from a baraita: If the inner courtyard belongs to a 岣ver, i.e., one devoted to the meticulous observance of mitzvot, especially the halakhot of ritual purity, teruma, and tithes, and the outer courtyard to an am ha鈥檃retz, that 岣ver may lay out his produce there, in the inner courtyard, and place his vessels there, without concern that the am ha鈥檃retz will touch them and render them impure. And this applies even if the hand of the am ha鈥檃retz can reach there. This poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rav, who holds that even in a situation where there is a partition there is concern about contact with an am ha鈥檃retz.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 砖谞转驻住 注诇讬讜 讻讙谞讘

The Gemara answers that Rav could have said to you: It is different there, as were the am ha鈥檃retz to tamper with the produce, he could be caught and accused as a thief, as he has no business being in the inner courtyard. Therefore, there is no concern that he will tamper with it.

转讗 砖诪注 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讙讙讜 砖诇 讞讘专 诇诪注诇讛 诪讙讙讜 砖诇 注诐 讛讗专抓 讗讜转讜 讞讘专 砖讜讟讞 砖诐 驻讬专讜转 讜诪谞讬讞 砖诐 讻诇讬诐 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 转讛讗 讬讚讜 砖诇 注诐 讛讗专抓 诪讙注转 诇砖诐 拽砖讬讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear support for Rav鈥檚 opinion from a baraita (Tosefta, Teharot 9:11): Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If the roof of a 岣ver is above the roof of his neighbor who is an am ha鈥檃retz, that 岣ver may lay out produce there and place vessels there, provided that the hand of the am ha鈥檃retz cannot reach there; but if it is within his reach, the pure items of the 岣ver are rendered impure. This poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who deems permitted pure items in a courtyard divided by a low partition.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇讗讬砖转诪讜讟讬 诪讬诪专 讗诪专 讗讬诪爪讜专讬 拽讗 诪诪爪专讗

The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yo岣nan could have said to you: It is different there, as were the am ha鈥檃retz to be discovered reaching up to the upper roof, he has a way to excuse his behavior by saying: I merely stretched myself; I was not intending to tamper with anything.

转讗 砖诪注 讙讙讜 砖诇 讞讘专 讘爪讚 讙讙讜 砖诇 注诐 讛讗专抓 讗讜转讜 讞讘专 砖讜讟讞 砖诐 驻讬专讜转 讜诪谞讬讞 砖诐 讻诇讬诐 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讬讚讜 砖诇 注诐 讛讗专抓 诪讙注转 诇砖诐 拽砖讬讗 诇专讘 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 诇讗讜 讗讬讻讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚拽讗讬 讻讜讜转讬 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

Come and hear that which is taught in that same baraita: If the roof of a 岣ver is beside the roof of an am ha鈥檃retz, that 岣ver may lay out produce there and place vessels there, even if hand of the am ha鈥檃retz can reach there. This poses a difficulty to the statement of Rav. The Gemara answers that Rav could have said to you: Isn鈥檛 there the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel, which stands in accordance with my opinion with regard to roofs that are next to one another? What I say is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel.

诪转谞讬壮 讘讜诇砖转 砖谞讻谞住讛 诇注讬专 讘砖注转 砖诇讜诐 讞讘讬讜转 驻转讜讞讜转 讗住讜专讜转 住转讜诪讜转 诪讜转专讜转 讘砖注转 诪诇讞诪讛 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 诪讜转专讜转 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 驻谞讗讬 诇谞住讱

MISHNA: In the case of a military unit [boleshet] that entered a city, if it entered during peacetime, then after the soldiers leave the open barrels of wine are forbidden, but the sealed barrels are permitted. If the unit entered in wartime, both these barrels and those barrels are permitted, because in wartime there is no time to pour wine for libations, and one can be certain that the soldiers did not do so.

Scroll To Top