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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 27, 2018 | 讬状讗 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 71b

Rav Ashi and Ameimar debate whether pulling an item affects an acquisition (kinyan) for non-Jews. If one pulls an item but has not yet聽settled on a price, does that prevent the acquisition from being final? The issue of a flow is raised again and an attempt is made to conclude is it considered connecting the two utensils (the one being poured from and the ones being poured聽into).

讙诪壮 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 注讬专 砖讻讘砖讜讛 讻专拽讜诐 讻诇 讻讛谞讜转 砖讘转讜讻讛 驻住讜诇讜转 讗诪专 专讘 诪专讬 诇谞住讱 讗讬谉 驻谞讗讬 诇讘注讜诇 讬砖 驻谞讗讬

GEMARA: And the Gemara raises a contradiction to the assumption that soldiers during wartime do not have time to commit transgressions from that which is taught in another mishna (Ketubot 27a): With regard to a city that was conquered by an army laying siege, all the women married to priests located in the city are unfit and forbidden to their husbands, due to the concern that they were raped. Rav Mari resolved the contradiction and said: They do not have time to pour wine for libations, as their passion for idolatry is not pressing at that time, but they have time to engage in intercourse, because their lust is great even during wartime.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讜诪谞讬谉 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 砖砖诇讞 诇讛诐 谞讻专讬 讞讘讬转 砖诇 讬讬谉 谞住讱 讘砖讻专谉 诪讜转专 诇讜诪专 转谉 诇谞讜 讗转 讚诪讬讛 诪砖谞讻谞住讛 诇专砖讜转谉 讗住讜专

MISHNA: With regard to Jewish craftsmen to whom a gentile sent a barrel of wine used for a libation in lieu of their wage, it is permitted for them to say to him: Give us its monetary value instead. But once it has entered into their possession, it is prohibited for them to say so, as that would be tantamount to selling the wine to the gentile and deriving benefit from it.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪讜转专 诇讗讚诐 诇讜诪专 诇讙讜讬 爪讗 讜讛驻住 注诇讬 诪谞转 讛诪诇讱

GEMARA: Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: It is permitted for a person to say to a gentile: Go and placate the collectors of the governmental tax on wine for me, and I will reimburse you subsequently, even if he pays the tax with wine used for a libation.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讗诇 讬讗诪专 讗讚诐 诇讙讜讬 注讜诇 转讞转讬 诇注讜爪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 注讜诇 转讞转讬 诇注讜爪专 拽讗诪专转 讛讗 诇讗 讚诪讬讗 讗诇讗 诇讛讗 讗讘诇 讗讜诪专 诇讜 诪诇讟谞讬 诪谉 讛注讜爪专

One of the Sages raised an objection from a baraita: A person may not say to a gentile: Go in my stead to the commissary [la鈥檕tzer] to pay the wine tax for me, if he pays it in wine used for a libation. Rav said to him: You say that the case I am referring to is similar to one who says to a gentile: Go in my stead to the commissary? In that case, since he says: In my stead, whatever the gentile gives the commissary is considered as though the Jew gave it himself. This case that I am referring to is comparable only to that which is taught in the baraita: But the Jew may say to a gentile: Save me from the commissary.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讜讻专 讬讬谞讜 诇谞讻专讬 驻住拽 注讚 砖诇讗 诪讚讚 讚诪讬讜 诪讜转专讬谉 诪讚讚 注讚 砖诇讗 驻住拽 讚诪讬讜 讗住讜专讬谉

MISHNA: In the case of a Jew who sells his wine to a gentile, if he fixed a price before he measured the wine into the gentile鈥檚 vessel, deriving benefit from the money paid for the wine is permitted. It is not tantamount to selling wine used for a libation, as the gentile purchased the wine before it became forbidden, and the money already belonged to the Jew. But if the Jew measured the wine into the gentile鈥檚 vessel, thereby rendering it forbidden, before he fixed a price, the money paid for the wine is forbidden.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 诪砖讬讻讛 讘讙讜讬 拽讜谞讛 转讚注 讚讛谞讬 驻专住讗讬 诪砖讚专讬 驻专讚砖谞讬 诇讛讚讚讬 讜诇讗 讛讚专讬 讘讛讜 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 诪砖讬讻讛 讘讙讜讬 讗讬谞讛 拽讜谞讛 讜讛讗讬 讚诇讗 讛讚专讬 讘讛讜 讚专诪讜转 专讜讞讗 讛讜讗 讚谞拽讬讟讗 诇讛讜

GEMARA: Ameimar says: The legal act of acquiring an object by pulling it applies to a gentile. Know that it is so, as those Persians send gifts [pardashnei] to one another and do not retract them, which shows that they acquire one from another by pulling the object alone, even without paying for it. Rav Ashi says: Actually, I will say to you that pulling an object does not acquire it in a transaction involving a gentile, and the fact that they do not retract their gifts is not due to the halakhot of acquisition but because they are taken over by haughtiness, and they consider it shameful to retract a gift.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 诪讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 诇讛谞讛讜 住讘讜讬转讗 讻讬 讻讬讬诇讬转讜 讞诪专讗 诇讙讜讬诐 砖拽诇讜 讝讜讝讬 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜讛讚专 讻讬讬诇谉 诇讛讜 讜讗讬 诇讗 谞拽讬讟讜 讘讛讚讬讬讛讜 讝讜讝讬 讗讜讝讬驻讜谞讛讜 讜讛讚专 砖拽讬诇讜 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚转讬讛讜讬 讛诇讜讗讛 讙讘讬讬讛讜 讚讗讬 诇讗 注讘讚讬转讜 讛讻讬 讻讬 拽讗 讛讜讬 讬讬谉 谞住讱 讘专砖讜转讬讬讻讜 拽讗 讛讜讬 讜讻讬 砖拽讬诇转讜 讚诪讬 讬讬谉 谞住讱 拽讗 砖拽讬诇转讜 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪砖讬讻讛 讘讙讜讬 拽讜谞讛

Rav Ashi said: From where do I say that acquisition by pulling does not apply to gentiles? It is from that which Rav said to certain wine shopkeepers: When you measure wine for gentiles, take the dinars from them and then measure the wine for them. And if they do not have dinars with them readily available, lend them dinars and then take those dinars back from them, so that it will be a loan provided to them that they are repaying. As if you do not do so, when it becomes wine used for a libation it becomes so in your possession, and when you take the money it will be payment for wine used for a libation that you are taking. Rav Ashi concludes his proof for his opinion: And if it enters your mind that pulling an object acquires it in a transaction involving a gentile,

诪讚诪砖讻讛 讙讜讬 拽谞讬讬讛 讬讬谉 谞住讱 诇讗 讛讜讬 注讚 讚谞讙注 讘讬讛

from the moment that he pulled it, the gentile acquired it, whereas it did not become wine used for a libation until he touched it. Therefore, the seller can receive payment for the wine he sold, because at the time of the acquisition the wine was permitted.

讗讬 讚拽讗 讻讬讬诇 讜专诪讬 诇诪谞讗 讚讬砖专讗诇 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚拽讗 讻讬讬诇 讜专诪讬 诇诪谞讗 讚讙讜讬

The Gemara rejects this proof: If it is a case where the seller measures the wine and pours it into the vessel of a Jew, it is indeed permitted to do so without receiving payment first. Rav鈥檚 ruling is not necessary except in a case where he measures the wine and pours it into the vessel of the gentile, which contains wine used for a libation, and the wine is rendered forbidden upon contact with the vessel even before the gentile acquires it by pulling it.

住讜祝 住讜祝 讻讬 诪讟讗 诇讗讜讬专讗 讚诪谞讗 拽谞讬讬讛 讬讬谉 谞住讱 诇讗 讛讜讬 注讚 讚诪讟讬 诇讗专注讬转讬讛 讚诪谞讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 谞爪讜拽 讞讘讜专

The Gemara raises an objection: Ultimately, even in this case, when the wine reaches the interior airspace of the gentile鈥檚 vessel, he acquires it, as this too is a mode of acquisition. And it does not become wine used for a libation until it reaches the bottom of the vessel, making contact with it, so the acquisition occurs before the wine becomes forbidden. Can one conclude from this that in the opinion of Rav a stream of liquid serves as a connection between two bodies of liquid? If so, when the Jew pours the wine into the gentile鈥檚 vessel, the flow of wine that is in contact with the forbidden wine at the bottom of the vessel would render all the wine being poured into the vessel forbidden.

诇讗 讗讬 讚谞拽讬讟 诇讬讛 讙讜讬 诇讻诇讬 讘讬讚讬讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚诪谞讞 讗讗专注讗

The Gemara rejects this conclusion: No, a stream of liquid does not serve as a connection, and therefore if the gentile is holding the vessel in his hand, the gentile indeed acquires the wine before it becomes forbidden, and therefore the money paid for it is permitted. Rav鈥檚 ruling is not necessary unless the gentile鈥檚 vessel is set on the ground, so that there is no act of acquisition before the wine becomes forbidden.

讜转讬拽谞讬 诇讬讛 讻诇讬讜 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 讻诇讬讜 砖诇 诇讜拽讞 讘专砖讜转 诪讜讻专 诇讗 拽谞讛 诇讜拽讞

The Gemara asks: But let the vessels of the gentile acquire the wine from the moment it enters the interior airspace. Can one conclude from this that if the buyer鈥檚 vessels are in the domain of the seller, the buyer does not acquire the merchandise once it is placed in his vessels? This is an issue that is subject to a dispute between the Sages, which remains unresolved.

诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 拽谞讛 诇讜拽讞 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 注讻讘转 讬讬谉 讗驻讜诪讬讛 讚讻讜讝谞转讗 讚拽诪讗 拽诪讗 讗讬谞住讬讱 诇讬讛

The Gemara rejects this: No, actually, I could say to you that the buyer acquires the merchandise in such a case. But here, where the wine is rendered forbidden before being acquired by the gentile, we are dealing with a case where there is a remnant of wine remaining on the mouth of the gentile鈥檚 jug [kuzanta], which renders the wine poured into the jug forbidden, as each bit of wine becomes libation wine when it comes into contact with the remnant of wine on the mouth as it is poured into the jug. This is why Rav told the wine shopkeepers to take the money before measuring the wine into the gentile鈥檚 vessel.

讜讻诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚讗讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讗诪专 讬诪讻专 讻讜诇讜 诇谞讻专讬诐 讞讜抓 诪讚诪讬 讬讬谉 谞住讱 砖讘讜

The Gemara raises an objection: And in accordance with whose opinion does Rav say this? It is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel; as, if it were in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, doesn鈥檛 he say that libation wine that became mixed with other wine may all be sold to gentiles for the monetary value of the entire mixture except for the value of the wine used for a libation that is in the mixture? Accordingly, it is permitted to accept payment for wine that was poured into a gentile鈥檚 vessel, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

诪讬讚讬 讛讜讗 讟注诪讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘 讛讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讞讘讬转 讘讞讘讬转 讗讘诇 诇讗 讬讬谉 讘讬讬谉

The Gemara answers: The explanation of this ruling can be only according to the opinion of Rav, who issued the ruling. And doesn鈥檛 Rav say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel only in the case of a barrel of permitted wine that became intermingled with another barrel of libation wine, but not in the case of wine that became mixed with other wine in the same barrel? Therefore, explaining Rav鈥檚 statement as contradicting the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is not problematic; consequently, it cannot be proven from his statement that a gentile does not acquire an item by pulling it.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛诇讜拽讞 讙专讜讟讗讜转 诪谉 讛讙讜讬诐 讜诪爪讗 讘讛谉 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讗诐 注讚 砖诇讗 谞转谉 诪注讜转 诪砖讱 讬讞讝讬专 讗诐 诪砖谞转谉 诪注讜转 诪砖讱 讬讜诇讬讱 诇讬诐 讛诪诇讞 讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪砖讬讻讛 讘讙讜讬 拽讜谞讛 讗诪讗讬 讬讞讝讬专 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讬讞讝讬 讻讬 诪拽讞 讟注讜转

The Gemara raises another objection to the statement of Ameimar that a gentile can acquire an object by pulling it. It is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who buys broken vessels made of gold or silver from the gentiles and finds among them an object of idol worship, if he pulled the object of idol worship, thereby performing an act of acquisition, before he gave the money to the gentile, he may return the object of idol worship to the gentile. But if he pulled it after he gave the money to the gentile, he may not return it. Since the idol鈥檚 status was not revoked, he must take it and cast it into the Dead Sea. In that case, if it enters your mind that pulling an object acquires it in a transaction with a gentile, as Ameimar maintains, then why may he return the object once he has pulled it, since it is his? Abaye said: He may return it because it appears to be a mistaken transaction, since he clearly did not intend to purchase an object of idol worship.

讗诪专 专讘讗 专讬砖讗 诪拽讞 讟注讜转 住讬驻讗 诇讗讜 诪拽讞 讟注讜转 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 专讬砖讗 讜住讬驻讗 诪拽讞 讟注讜转 讜专讬砖讗 讚诇讗 讬讛讬讘 讝讜讝讬 诇讗 诪讬转讞讝讬 讻注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讘讬讚 讬砖专讗诇 住讬驻讗 讚讬讛讬讘 讝讜讝讬 诪讬转讞讝讬 讻注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讘讬讚 讬砖专讗诇

Rava said: Then why, in the second instance, where he paid the money, may he not return it? Is the purchase in the first clause a mistaken transaction but the purchase in the latter clause not a mistaken transaction? Rather, Rava said: The purchase in the first clause and the purchase in the latter clause are both a mistaken transaction, but in the case presented in the first clause, where he did not pay him the dinars, it does not appear as though there is an object of idol worship in the possession of a Jew, and so he may return it. By contrast, in the latter clause, where he did pay him the dinars, it appears as though there is an object of idol worship in the possession of a Jew, and therefore he must cast away the object rather than return it.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 拽砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 转讗 砖诪注 讛诪讜讻专 讬讬谞讜 诇谞讻专讬 驻住拽 注讚 砖诇讗 诪讚讚 讚诪讬讜 诪讜转专讬诐 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 诪砖讬讻讛 讘讙讜讬 讗讬谞讛 拽讜谞讛 讗诪讗讬 讚诪讬讜 诪讜转专讬谉 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讗拽讚讬诐 诇讬讛 讚讬谞专

搂 The Gemara cites a claim against Rav Ashi鈥檚 opinion that a gentile cannot acquire an item by pulling it: Mar Kashisha, son of Rav 岣sda, said to Rav Ashi: Come and hear an objection to your opinion from the mishna: In the case of a Jew who sells his wine to a gentile, if he fixed a price before he measured the wine into the gentile鈥檚 vessel, deriving benefit from the money paid for the wine is permitted, as the wine was acquired by the gentile before he touched it. And if you say that pulling an item does not acquire it in a transaction involving a gentile, why is the money paid for it permitted? Rav Ashi replied: Here we are dealing with a case where the gentile paid him a dinar in advance, before the measuring, thereby acquiring the wine with money.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 诪讚讚 注讚 砖诇讗 驻住拽 讚诪讬讜 讗住讜专讬谉 讜讗讬 讚拽讚讬诐 诇讬讛 讚讬谞专 讗诪讗讬 讚诪讬讜 讗住讜专讬谉

One of the Sages raised an objection: If that is so, say the last clause: But if the Jew measured the wine into the gentile鈥檚 vessel, thereby rendering it forbidden, before he fixed a price, the money paid for the wine is forbidden. And if he paid him a dinar in advance, why should the money paid for it be forbidden?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讚讬讚讱 讚讗诪专转 诪砖讬讻讛 讘讙讜讬 拽讜谞讛 讗诪讗讬 专讬砖讗 讚诪讬讜 诪讜转专讬谉 讜住讬驻讗 讚诪讬讜 讗住讜专讬谉

Rav Ashi said to him: And according to you, as you say that pulling acquires items in a transaction involving a gentile, why in the first clause is the money paid for it permitted, and in the latter clause the money paid for it is forbidden?

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讱 诇诪讬诪专 驻住拽 住诪讻讗 讚注转讬讛 诇讗 驻住拽 诇讗 住诪讻讗 讚注转讬讛

Rather, what have you to say to explain the distinction between the two cases? You say that when the Jew fixed a price, the gentile consequently relied on him that the sale would not be canceled, and so the sale was concluded by the pulling. But in a case where he did not fix a price, the gentile did not rely on him that the sale would not be canceled, and therefore the sale was not concluded.

诇讚讬讚讬 谞诪讬 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚拽讚讬诐 诇讬讛 讚讬谞专 驻住拽 住诪讻讗 讚注转讬讛 诇讗 驻住拽 诇讗 住诪讻讗 讚注转讬讛

According to my opinion as well, even though the gentile gave him a dinar in advance, if he fixed a price, the gentile relied on him that the sale would not be canceled, and if he did not fix a price, the gentile did not rely on him that the sale would not be canceled.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讞 谞讛专讙 注诇 驻讞讜转 诪砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讜诇讗 谞讬转谉 诇讛讬砖讘讜谉 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 诪砖讬讻讛 讘讙讜讬 讗讬谞讛 拽讜谞讛 讗诪讗讬 谞讛专讙

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Come and hear another proof against your opinion, as Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: A descendant of Noah, i.e., a gentile, is executed by the court for theft of even less than the value of one peruta; but if he stole less than the value of one peruta from a Jew, it is not subject to restitution, i.e., he is not obligated to return it, as the Jew presumably waived the debt. And if you say that pulling an item does not acquire it in a transaction involving a gentile, why should he be executed? He did not commit a legally significant act by stealing the item, as it remains in the possession of the owner.

诪砖讜诐 讚爪注专讬讛 诇讬砖专讗诇

The Gemara answers: He is executed because he caused a Jew distress by stealing the item, even though by the halakhot of acquisition the thief did not acquire it.

  • 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 71b

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Avodah Zarah 71b

讙诪壮 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 注讬专 砖讻讘砖讜讛 讻专拽讜诐 讻诇 讻讛谞讜转 砖讘转讜讻讛 驻住讜诇讜转 讗诪专 专讘 诪专讬 诇谞住讱 讗讬谉 驻谞讗讬 诇讘注讜诇 讬砖 驻谞讗讬

GEMARA: And the Gemara raises a contradiction to the assumption that soldiers during wartime do not have time to commit transgressions from that which is taught in another mishna (Ketubot 27a): With regard to a city that was conquered by an army laying siege, all the women married to priests located in the city are unfit and forbidden to their husbands, due to the concern that they were raped. Rav Mari resolved the contradiction and said: They do not have time to pour wine for libations, as their passion for idolatry is not pressing at that time, but they have time to engage in intercourse, because their lust is great even during wartime.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讜诪谞讬谉 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 砖砖诇讞 诇讛诐 谞讻专讬 讞讘讬转 砖诇 讬讬谉 谞住讱 讘砖讻专谉 诪讜转专 诇讜诪专 转谉 诇谞讜 讗转 讚诪讬讛 诪砖谞讻谞住讛 诇专砖讜转谉 讗住讜专

MISHNA: With regard to Jewish craftsmen to whom a gentile sent a barrel of wine used for a libation in lieu of their wage, it is permitted for them to say to him: Give us its monetary value instead. But once it has entered into their possession, it is prohibited for them to say so, as that would be tantamount to selling the wine to the gentile and deriving benefit from it.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪讜转专 诇讗讚诐 诇讜诪专 诇讙讜讬 爪讗 讜讛驻住 注诇讬 诪谞转 讛诪诇讱

GEMARA: Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: It is permitted for a person to say to a gentile: Go and placate the collectors of the governmental tax on wine for me, and I will reimburse you subsequently, even if he pays the tax with wine used for a libation.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讗诇 讬讗诪专 讗讚诐 诇讙讜讬 注讜诇 转讞转讬 诇注讜爪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 注讜诇 转讞转讬 诇注讜爪专 拽讗诪专转 讛讗 诇讗 讚诪讬讗 讗诇讗 诇讛讗 讗讘诇 讗讜诪专 诇讜 诪诇讟谞讬 诪谉 讛注讜爪专

One of the Sages raised an objection from a baraita: A person may not say to a gentile: Go in my stead to the commissary [la鈥檕tzer] to pay the wine tax for me, if he pays it in wine used for a libation. Rav said to him: You say that the case I am referring to is similar to one who says to a gentile: Go in my stead to the commissary? In that case, since he says: In my stead, whatever the gentile gives the commissary is considered as though the Jew gave it himself. This case that I am referring to is comparable only to that which is taught in the baraita: But the Jew may say to a gentile: Save me from the commissary.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讜讻专 讬讬谞讜 诇谞讻专讬 驻住拽 注讚 砖诇讗 诪讚讚 讚诪讬讜 诪讜转专讬谉 诪讚讚 注讚 砖诇讗 驻住拽 讚诪讬讜 讗住讜专讬谉

MISHNA: In the case of a Jew who sells his wine to a gentile, if he fixed a price before he measured the wine into the gentile鈥檚 vessel, deriving benefit from the money paid for the wine is permitted. It is not tantamount to selling wine used for a libation, as the gentile purchased the wine before it became forbidden, and the money already belonged to the Jew. But if the Jew measured the wine into the gentile鈥檚 vessel, thereby rendering it forbidden, before he fixed a price, the money paid for the wine is forbidden.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 诪砖讬讻讛 讘讙讜讬 拽讜谞讛 转讚注 讚讛谞讬 驻专住讗讬 诪砖讚专讬 驻专讚砖谞讬 诇讛讚讚讬 讜诇讗 讛讚专讬 讘讛讜 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 诪砖讬讻讛 讘讙讜讬 讗讬谞讛 拽讜谞讛 讜讛讗讬 讚诇讗 讛讚专讬 讘讛讜 讚专诪讜转 专讜讞讗 讛讜讗 讚谞拽讬讟讗 诇讛讜

GEMARA: Ameimar says: The legal act of acquiring an object by pulling it applies to a gentile. Know that it is so, as those Persians send gifts [pardashnei] to one another and do not retract them, which shows that they acquire one from another by pulling the object alone, even without paying for it. Rav Ashi says: Actually, I will say to you that pulling an object does not acquire it in a transaction involving a gentile, and the fact that they do not retract their gifts is not due to the halakhot of acquisition but because they are taken over by haughtiness, and they consider it shameful to retract a gift.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 诪讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 诇讛谞讛讜 住讘讜讬转讗 讻讬 讻讬讬诇讬转讜 讞诪专讗 诇讙讜讬诐 砖拽诇讜 讝讜讝讬 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜讛讚专 讻讬讬诇谉 诇讛讜 讜讗讬 诇讗 谞拽讬讟讜 讘讛讚讬讬讛讜 讝讜讝讬 讗讜讝讬驻讜谞讛讜 讜讛讚专 砖拽讬诇讜 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚转讬讛讜讬 讛诇讜讗讛 讙讘讬讬讛讜 讚讗讬 诇讗 注讘讚讬转讜 讛讻讬 讻讬 拽讗 讛讜讬 讬讬谉 谞住讱 讘专砖讜转讬讬讻讜 拽讗 讛讜讬 讜讻讬 砖拽讬诇转讜 讚诪讬 讬讬谉 谞住讱 拽讗 砖拽讬诇转讜 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪砖讬讻讛 讘讙讜讬 拽讜谞讛

Rav Ashi said: From where do I say that acquisition by pulling does not apply to gentiles? It is from that which Rav said to certain wine shopkeepers: When you measure wine for gentiles, take the dinars from them and then measure the wine for them. And if they do not have dinars with them readily available, lend them dinars and then take those dinars back from them, so that it will be a loan provided to them that they are repaying. As if you do not do so, when it becomes wine used for a libation it becomes so in your possession, and when you take the money it will be payment for wine used for a libation that you are taking. Rav Ashi concludes his proof for his opinion: And if it enters your mind that pulling an object acquires it in a transaction involving a gentile,

诪讚诪砖讻讛 讙讜讬 拽谞讬讬讛 讬讬谉 谞住讱 诇讗 讛讜讬 注讚 讚谞讙注 讘讬讛

from the moment that he pulled it, the gentile acquired it, whereas it did not become wine used for a libation until he touched it. Therefore, the seller can receive payment for the wine he sold, because at the time of the acquisition the wine was permitted.

讗讬 讚拽讗 讻讬讬诇 讜专诪讬 诇诪谞讗 讚讬砖专讗诇 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚拽讗 讻讬讬诇 讜专诪讬 诇诪谞讗 讚讙讜讬

The Gemara rejects this proof: If it is a case where the seller measures the wine and pours it into the vessel of a Jew, it is indeed permitted to do so without receiving payment first. Rav鈥檚 ruling is not necessary except in a case where he measures the wine and pours it into the vessel of the gentile, which contains wine used for a libation, and the wine is rendered forbidden upon contact with the vessel even before the gentile acquires it by pulling it.

住讜祝 住讜祝 讻讬 诪讟讗 诇讗讜讬专讗 讚诪谞讗 拽谞讬讬讛 讬讬谉 谞住讱 诇讗 讛讜讬 注讚 讚诪讟讬 诇讗专注讬转讬讛 讚诪谞讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 谞爪讜拽 讞讘讜专

The Gemara raises an objection: Ultimately, even in this case, when the wine reaches the interior airspace of the gentile鈥檚 vessel, he acquires it, as this too is a mode of acquisition. And it does not become wine used for a libation until it reaches the bottom of the vessel, making contact with it, so the acquisition occurs before the wine becomes forbidden. Can one conclude from this that in the opinion of Rav a stream of liquid serves as a connection between two bodies of liquid? If so, when the Jew pours the wine into the gentile鈥檚 vessel, the flow of wine that is in contact with the forbidden wine at the bottom of the vessel would render all the wine being poured into the vessel forbidden.

诇讗 讗讬 讚谞拽讬讟 诇讬讛 讙讜讬 诇讻诇讬 讘讬讚讬讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚诪谞讞 讗讗专注讗

The Gemara rejects this conclusion: No, a stream of liquid does not serve as a connection, and therefore if the gentile is holding the vessel in his hand, the gentile indeed acquires the wine before it becomes forbidden, and therefore the money paid for it is permitted. Rav鈥檚 ruling is not necessary unless the gentile鈥檚 vessel is set on the ground, so that there is no act of acquisition before the wine becomes forbidden.

讜转讬拽谞讬 诇讬讛 讻诇讬讜 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 讻诇讬讜 砖诇 诇讜拽讞 讘专砖讜转 诪讜讻专 诇讗 拽谞讛 诇讜拽讞

The Gemara asks: But let the vessels of the gentile acquire the wine from the moment it enters the interior airspace. Can one conclude from this that if the buyer鈥檚 vessels are in the domain of the seller, the buyer does not acquire the merchandise once it is placed in his vessels? This is an issue that is subject to a dispute between the Sages, which remains unresolved.

诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 拽谞讛 诇讜拽讞 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 注讻讘转 讬讬谉 讗驻讜诪讬讛 讚讻讜讝谞转讗 讚拽诪讗 拽诪讗 讗讬谞住讬讱 诇讬讛

The Gemara rejects this: No, actually, I could say to you that the buyer acquires the merchandise in such a case. But here, where the wine is rendered forbidden before being acquired by the gentile, we are dealing with a case where there is a remnant of wine remaining on the mouth of the gentile鈥檚 jug [kuzanta], which renders the wine poured into the jug forbidden, as each bit of wine becomes libation wine when it comes into contact with the remnant of wine on the mouth as it is poured into the jug. This is why Rav told the wine shopkeepers to take the money before measuring the wine into the gentile鈥檚 vessel.

讜讻诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚讗讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讗诪专 讬诪讻专 讻讜诇讜 诇谞讻专讬诐 讞讜抓 诪讚诪讬 讬讬谉 谞住讱 砖讘讜

The Gemara raises an objection: And in accordance with whose opinion does Rav say this? It is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel; as, if it were in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, doesn鈥檛 he say that libation wine that became mixed with other wine may all be sold to gentiles for the monetary value of the entire mixture except for the value of the wine used for a libation that is in the mixture? Accordingly, it is permitted to accept payment for wine that was poured into a gentile鈥檚 vessel, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

诪讬讚讬 讛讜讗 讟注诪讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘 讛讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讞讘讬转 讘讞讘讬转 讗讘诇 诇讗 讬讬谉 讘讬讬谉

The Gemara answers: The explanation of this ruling can be only according to the opinion of Rav, who issued the ruling. And doesn鈥檛 Rav say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel only in the case of a barrel of permitted wine that became intermingled with another barrel of libation wine, but not in the case of wine that became mixed with other wine in the same barrel? Therefore, explaining Rav鈥檚 statement as contradicting the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is not problematic; consequently, it cannot be proven from his statement that a gentile does not acquire an item by pulling it.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛诇讜拽讞 讙专讜讟讗讜转 诪谉 讛讙讜讬诐 讜诪爪讗 讘讛谉 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讗诐 注讚 砖诇讗 谞转谉 诪注讜转 诪砖讱 讬讞讝讬专 讗诐 诪砖谞转谉 诪注讜转 诪砖讱 讬讜诇讬讱 诇讬诐 讛诪诇讞 讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪砖讬讻讛 讘讙讜讬 拽讜谞讛 讗诪讗讬 讬讞讝讬专 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讬讞讝讬 讻讬 诪拽讞 讟注讜转

The Gemara raises another objection to the statement of Ameimar that a gentile can acquire an object by pulling it. It is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who buys broken vessels made of gold or silver from the gentiles and finds among them an object of idol worship, if he pulled the object of idol worship, thereby performing an act of acquisition, before he gave the money to the gentile, he may return the object of idol worship to the gentile. But if he pulled it after he gave the money to the gentile, he may not return it. Since the idol鈥檚 status was not revoked, he must take it and cast it into the Dead Sea. In that case, if it enters your mind that pulling an object acquires it in a transaction with a gentile, as Ameimar maintains, then why may he return the object once he has pulled it, since it is his? Abaye said: He may return it because it appears to be a mistaken transaction, since he clearly did not intend to purchase an object of idol worship.

讗诪专 专讘讗 专讬砖讗 诪拽讞 讟注讜转 住讬驻讗 诇讗讜 诪拽讞 讟注讜转 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 专讬砖讗 讜住讬驻讗 诪拽讞 讟注讜转 讜专讬砖讗 讚诇讗 讬讛讬讘 讝讜讝讬 诇讗 诪讬转讞讝讬 讻注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讘讬讚 讬砖专讗诇 住讬驻讗 讚讬讛讬讘 讝讜讝讬 诪讬转讞讝讬 讻注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讘讬讚 讬砖专讗诇

Rava said: Then why, in the second instance, where he paid the money, may he not return it? Is the purchase in the first clause a mistaken transaction but the purchase in the latter clause not a mistaken transaction? Rather, Rava said: The purchase in the first clause and the purchase in the latter clause are both a mistaken transaction, but in the case presented in the first clause, where he did not pay him the dinars, it does not appear as though there is an object of idol worship in the possession of a Jew, and so he may return it. By contrast, in the latter clause, where he did pay him the dinars, it appears as though there is an object of idol worship in the possession of a Jew, and therefore he must cast away the object rather than return it.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 拽砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 转讗 砖诪注 讛诪讜讻专 讬讬谞讜 诇谞讻专讬 驻住拽 注讚 砖诇讗 诪讚讚 讚诪讬讜 诪讜转专讬诐 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 诪砖讬讻讛 讘讙讜讬 讗讬谞讛 拽讜谞讛 讗诪讗讬 讚诪讬讜 诪讜转专讬谉 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讗拽讚讬诐 诇讬讛 讚讬谞专

搂 The Gemara cites a claim against Rav Ashi鈥檚 opinion that a gentile cannot acquire an item by pulling it: Mar Kashisha, son of Rav 岣sda, said to Rav Ashi: Come and hear an objection to your opinion from the mishna: In the case of a Jew who sells his wine to a gentile, if he fixed a price before he measured the wine into the gentile鈥檚 vessel, deriving benefit from the money paid for the wine is permitted, as the wine was acquired by the gentile before he touched it. And if you say that pulling an item does not acquire it in a transaction involving a gentile, why is the money paid for it permitted? Rav Ashi replied: Here we are dealing with a case where the gentile paid him a dinar in advance, before the measuring, thereby acquiring the wine with money.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 诪讚讚 注讚 砖诇讗 驻住拽 讚诪讬讜 讗住讜专讬谉 讜讗讬 讚拽讚讬诐 诇讬讛 讚讬谞专 讗诪讗讬 讚诪讬讜 讗住讜专讬谉

One of the Sages raised an objection: If that is so, say the last clause: But if the Jew measured the wine into the gentile鈥檚 vessel, thereby rendering it forbidden, before he fixed a price, the money paid for the wine is forbidden. And if he paid him a dinar in advance, why should the money paid for it be forbidden?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讚讬讚讱 讚讗诪专转 诪砖讬讻讛 讘讙讜讬 拽讜谞讛 讗诪讗讬 专讬砖讗 讚诪讬讜 诪讜转专讬谉 讜住讬驻讗 讚诪讬讜 讗住讜专讬谉

Rav Ashi said to him: And according to you, as you say that pulling acquires items in a transaction involving a gentile, why in the first clause is the money paid for it permitted, and in the latter clause the money paid for it is forbidden?

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讱 诇诪讬诪专 驻住拽 住诪讻讗 讚注转讬讛 诇讗 驻住拽 诇讗 住诪讻讗 讚注转讬讛

Rather, what have you to say to explain the distinction between the two cases? You say that when the Jew fixed a price, the gentile consequently relied on him that the sale would not be canceled, and so the sale was concluded by the pulling. But in a case where he did not fix a price, the gentile did not rely on him that the sale would not be canceled, and therefore the sale was not concluded.

诇讚讬讚讬 谞诪讬 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚拽讚讬诐 诇讬讛 讚讬谞专 驻住拽 住诪讻讗 讚注转讬讛 诇讗 驻住拽 诇讗 住诪讻讗 讚注转讬讛

According to my opinion as well, even though the gentile gave him a dinar in advance, if he fixed a price, the gentile relied on him that the sale would not be canceled, and if he did not fix a price, the gentile did not rely on him that the sale would not be canceled.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讞 谞讛专讙 注诇 驻讞讜转 诪砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讜诇讗 谞讬转谉 诇讛讬砖讘讜谉 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 诪砖讬讻讛 讘讙讜讬 讗讬谞讛 拽讜谞讛 讗诪讗讬 谞讛专讙

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Come and hear another proof against your opinion, as Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: A descendant of Noah, i.e., a gentile, is executed by the court for theft of even less than the value of one peruta; but if he stole less than the value of one peruta from a Jew, it is not subject to restitution, i.e., he is not obligated to return it, as the Jew presumably waived the debt. And if you say that pulling an item does not acquire it in a transaction involving a gentile, why should he be executed? He did not commit a legally significant act by stealing the item, as it remains in the possession of the owner.

诪砖讜诐 讚爪注专讬讛 诇讬砖专讗诇

The Gemara answers: He is executed because he caused a Jew distress by stealing the item, even though by the halakhot of acquisition the thief did not acquire it.

Scroll To Top