Avodah Zarah 74

מתני׳ אלו אסורין ואוסרין בכל שהו יין נסך ועבודה זרה ועורות לבובין

MISHNA: These following items are themselves forbidden, and any amount of them renders other items with which they become mixed forbidden: Wine used for a libation; and objects of idol worship; and hides with a tear opposite the heart, indicating the idolatrous practice of sacrificing hearts of live animals.

ושור הנסקל ועגלה ערופה

And this halakha also applies to an ox that has been condemned to be stoned (see Exodus 21:28), from which it is prohibited to derive benefit even before its sentence is carried out; and it applies to a heifer whose neck is broken when a person is found killed in an area between two cities and the murderer is unknown (see Deuteronomy 21:1–9), which is likewise forbidden from the time it is taken down to the river to be killed. In these cases, if the animal becomes mixed in a herd of similar animals, all of the animals in the herd are forbidden.

וציפורי מצורע ושער נזיר ופטר חמור ובשר בחלב ושעיר המשתלח וחולין שנשחטו בעזרה הרי אלו אסורין ואוסרין בכל שהוא

And this halakha also applies to birds designated for the purification of a leper (Leviticus 14:1–6), and the shorn hair of a nazirite (Numbers 6:18), and a firstborn donkey (Exodus 13:13), and meat that was cooked in milk (Exodus 23:19), and the scape-goat of Yom Kippur (Leviticus 16:7–10), and the meat of a non-sacred animal that was slaughtered in the Temple courtyard. All of these are forbidden themselves, and any amount of them renders a mixture forbidden.

גמ׳ תנא מאי קחשיב אי דבר שבמנין קחשיב ליתני נמי חתיכות נבילה אי איסורי הנאה קא חשיב ליתני נמי חמץ בפסח אמר רבי חייא בר אבא ואיתימא רבי יצחק נפחא האי תנא תרתי אית ליה דבר שבמנין ואיסורי הנאה

GEMARA: According to what criterion does the tanna who teaches this mishna reckon cases? If he reckons based on any item that is counted, i.e., any item that is significant enough to be considered individually, which therefore cannot be nullified in a mixture even in a very large majority of permitted items, let him also teach the case of significant cuts of an unslaughtered animal carcass. And if he reckons based on items from which deriving benefit is prohibited, let him also teach the case of leavened bread on Passover. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, and some say it was Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa who said: This tanna has two criteria. He reckons based on any item that is both counted and from which deriving benefit is prohibited.

וליתני אגוזי פרך ורימוני בדן דדבר שבמנין ואיסורי הנאה הוא

The Gemara challenges: But let the tanna teach the cases of perekh nuts, a type of nut that has a brittle shell, and Badan pomegranates, pomegranates from Badan; as these fruits are considered significant, and when they grow during the first three years after the tree was planted [orla], they belong to the category of items that are counted and from which deriving benefit is prohibited.

הא תנא ליה התם הראוי לערלה ערלה הראוי לכלאי הכרם כלאי הכרם

The Gemara responds: The Mishna taught that case there, in tractate Orla (3:7), where perekh nuts and Badan pomegranates are listed among the forbidden items that cannot be nullified in a mixture, and it is stated with regard to such items: Those items to which the prohibition of orla applies render the entire mixture forbidden by imparting to it the status of orla, while those to which the prohibition of diverse kinds planted in a vineyard applies render the mixture forbidden by imparting to it the status of diverse kinds planted in a vineyard. Therefore, it is unnecessary to mention those cases here.

וליתני ככרות של בעל הבית לענין חמץ בפסח מאן שמעת דאמר לה רבי עקיבא הא תנא ליה התם רבי עקיבא מוסיף אף ככרות של בעל הבית

The Gemara suggests: But let the tanna teach the case of loaves of a homeowner, each of which is unique and significant, with regard to the prohibition against deriving benefit from leavened bread on Passover. The Gemara explains: Whom did you hear who says that such loaves are not nullified in a mixture? This is taught by Rabbi Akiva, and he taught it there in tractate Orla (3:7): Rabbi Akiva adds to the list the loaves of a homeowner.

הרי אלו למעוטי מאי למעוטי דבר שבמנין ולאו איסורי הנאה אי נמי למעוטי איסור הנאה ולא דבר שבמנין

At the end of the mishna here, the tanna reiterates the halakha stated at its beginning, saying: All of these are forbidden themselves, and any amount of them renders a mixture forbidden. The Gemara asks: The purpose of this reiteration is to exclude what? The Gemara answers: It serves to exclude any item that is counted but from which deriving benefit is not prohibited, or to exclude items from which deriving benefit is prohibited but that are not counted.

מתני׳ יין נסך שנפל לבור כולו אסור בהנאה רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר ימכר כולו לגוי חוץ מדמי יין נסך שבו

MISHNA: In the case of wine used for a libation that fell into a wine cistern, it is prohibited to derive benefit from all of the wine in the cistern, even if the volume of the wine used for a libation was tiny in comparison to the volume of the wine in the cistern. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: All of the wine in the cistern may be sold to a gentile, and the money paid for it is permitted except for the value of the wine used for a libation that is included in it.

גמ׳ אמר רב הלכה כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל חבית בחביות אבל לא יין ביין ושמואל אמר אפילו יין ביין וכן אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן אפילו יין ביין וכן אמר רבי שמואל בר נחמני אמר רבי חנינא אפילו יין ביין וכן אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה אפילו יין ביין

GEMARA: Rav says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel in a case where a barrel of wine used for a libation became intermingled with barrels of permitted wine, but not when the wine itself became mixed with permitted wine. And Shmuel says: Even when the wine itself became mixed with permitted wine, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. And likewise, Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Even when wine became mixed with wine, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. And likewise, Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Ḥanina says: Even when wine became mixed with wine, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. And likewise, Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: Even when wine became mixed with wine, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

אמר רב נחמן הלכה למעשה יין נסך יין ביין אסור חבית בחבית מותר סתם יין אפילו יין ביין מותר

Rav Naḥman says: The practical halakha is that with regard to wine that was actually used for a libation, wine that became mixed with wine renders the entire mixture forbidden, but if a barrel became intermingled with barrels of permitted wine, it is permitted to sell the barrels in the manner described by Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. With regard to nondescript wine of gentiles, which is forbidden due to the suspicion that it was used for a libation, even if wine became mixed with wine, it is permitted to sell the mixture in the manner described by Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

מתני׳ גת של אבן שזפתה גוי מנגבה והיא טהורה ושל עץ רבי אומר ינגב וחכמים אומרים יקלוף את הזפת ושל חרס אף על פי שקלף את הזפת הרי זו אסורה

MISHNA: In the case of a stone winepress that a gentile lined with pitch and then poured wine onto the pitch to neutralize its flavor, one may cleanse it and it is pure, i.e., wine pressed in it is permitted. And if the winepress is fashioned of wood, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: One may cleanse it, but the Rabbis say: One must peel off the pitch completely. And if the winepress is of earthenware, even if one peeled off the pitch, this press is forbidden.

גמ׳ אמר רבא דוקא זפתה אבל דרך בה לא פשיטא זפתה תנן מהו דתימא הוא הדין אפילו דרך בה והאי דקתני זפתה אורחא דמלתא קתני קא משמע לן

GEMARA: Rava says: The requirement to cleanse the winepress applies specifically if the gentile lined it with pitch. But if he only trod on his grapes in it without lining it with pitch, this is not required. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious? We learned in the mishna that cleansing the winepress is necessary if the gentile lined it with pitch. The Gemara responds: Lest you say that the same is true that it requires cleansing even if he trod on his grapes in it, and the fact that the mishna teaches a case where he lined it with pitch is because the mishna is teaching the manner in which the matter typically occurs, therefore Rava teaches us that this is not the case.

איכא דאמרי אמר רבא דוקא זפתה אבל דרך בה לא סגי לה בניגוב פשיטא זפתה תנן מהו דתימא הוא הדין דאפילו דרך בה והאי דקתני זפתה אורחא דמלתא קתני קא משמע לן דוקא זפתה אבל דרך בה לא סגי לה בניגוב

There are those who say that Rava says: Cleansing the winepress is effective specifically if the gentile lined it with pitch. But if he trod on his grapes in it as well, cleansing it is not sufficient to purify the winepress. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious? We learned in the mishna that cleansing the winepress is sufficient if the gentile lined it with pitch. The Gemara responds: Lest you say that the same is true and that cleansing is sufficient even if he trod on his grapes in it, and the fact that the mishna teaches a case where he lined it with pitch is because the mishna is teaching the manner in which the matter typically occurs, therefore Rava teaches us that cleansing the winepress is sufficient specifically if he lined it with pitch, but if he trod on his grapes in it, cleansing it is not sufficient.

כי ההוא דאתא לקמיה דרבי חייא אמר ליה הב לי גברא דדכי לי מעצרתאי אמר ליה לרב זיל בהדיה וחזי דלא מצוחת עלי בי מדרשא אזל חזייה דהוה שיעא טפי אמר הא ודאי בניגוב סגי לה בהדי דקא אזיל ואתי חזא פילא מתותיה וחזא דהוה מלא חמרא אמר הא לא סגי לה בניגוב אלא בקילוף והיינו דאמר לי חביבי חזי דלא מצוחת עלי בי מדרשא

This is similar to an incident involving a certain man who came before Rabbi Ḥiyya and said to him: Give me a man who will purify my winepress that I purchased from a gentile. Rabbi Ḥiyya said to Rav: Go with him and see to it that you conduct yourself in such a manner that will not cause people to complain against me in the study hall. Rav went with him and saw that the winepress was very smooth with pitch. Rav said: Cleansing will certainly be sufficient for this, because it does not absorb the wine. While Rav was going and coming, he saw a crack underneath his feet and saw that it was full of wine. He then said: Cleansing is not sufficient for this; rather, it requires peeling. And this is what my uncle [ḥavivi] meant when he said to me: See to it that you do not cause people to complain against me in the study hall.

תנו רבנן הגת והמחץ והמשפך של גוים רבי מתיר בניגוב וחכמים אוסרין ומודה רבי בקנקנים של גוים שהן אסורין ומה הפרש בין זה לזה זה מכניסו בקיום וזה אין מכניסו בקיום ושל עץ ושל אבן ינגב ואם היו מזופפין אסורין

The Sages taught: With regard to the winepress and its utensils, the ladle and the funnel, which belong to gentiles, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permits them by cleansing, and the Rabbis deem them forbidden. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi concedes with regard to earthenware jugs belonging to gentiles that they are forbidden. And what is the difference between this case and that case? This jug contains the wine for storage purposes, and that case, involving a ladle and a funnel, involves utensils that do not contain it for storage purposes but only temporarily. And if the winepress or its utensils are fashioned of wood or stone, one must cleanse them, but if they were lined with pitch, they are forbidden, and cleansing is not sufficient to render them permitted.

והתנן גת של אבן שזפתה גוי מנגבה והיא טהורה מתניתין דלא דרך בה ברייתא דדרך בה

The Gemara raises an objection to the last clause of the baraita: But didn’t we learn in the mishna that in the case of a stone winepress that a gentile lined with pitch, one may cleanse it and it is pure? The Gemara answers: The mishna is referring to a case where the gentile did not tread on his grapes in it, whereas the baraita is referring to a case where he trod on his grapes in it.

אמר מר הגת והמחץ והמשפך של גוים רבי מתיר בניגוב וחכמים אוסרין והאנן תנן של חרס אף על פי שקלף את הזפת הרי זו אסורה אמר רבא סיפא דמתניתין אתאן לרבנן

The Master said above: With regard to the winepress and the ladle and the funnel that belong to gentiles, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permits them by cleansing, and the Rabbis deem them forbidden. The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in the mishna that if the winepress is of earthenware, even if one peeled off the pitch this press is forbidden? Rava said: In the last clause of the mishna we arrive at the opinion of the Rabbis.

דרש רבא נעוה ארתחו רבא כי הוה משדר גולפי להרפניא סחיף להו אפומייהו וחתים להו אבירצייהו קסבר כל דבר שמכניסו לקיום אפילו לפי שעה גזרו ביה רבנן

Rava taught: If one has a tank of wine used by gentiles, he must scald it in order to render it permitted for use. When Rava would dispatch empty kegs to Harpanya, he would turn them over, placing them in their sacks on their openings, and seal the sacks on their brims, so that the gentile carriers would not be able to use them for wine. He maintained that with regard to anything that is used to contain wine for storage, even if the wine may be stored in it only temporarily, the Sages decreed that it is forbidden for use as though it had contained wine.

במה מנגבן רב אמר במים רבה בר בר חנה אמר באפר רב אמר במים במים ולא באפר רבה בר בר חנה אמר באפר באפר ולא במים אלא

§ The Gemara asks with regard to the cleansing mentioned in the mishna: How does one cleanse a winepress, or utensils used by a gentile for wine? Rav says: One cleans it with water. Rabba bar bar Ḥana says: One cleans it with ashes. The Gemara asks: When Rav says: One cleans it with water, does he mean only with water and not with ashes as well? Furthermore, when Rabba bar bar Ḥana says: One cleans it with ashes, does he mean only with ashes, and not with water as well? Rather, their statements must be understood as follows: