עבודה זרה ל׳

עבודה זרה ל׳

אִיחַלּוֹפֵי — כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא חוֹתָם אֶחָד, לָא טָרַח וּמְזַיֵּיף.

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

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: יַיִן מְבוּשָּׁל וַאֲלוּנְתִּית שֶׁל גּוֹיִם — אֲסוּרִין, אֲלוּנְתִּית כִּבְרִיָּיתָהּ — מוּתֶּרֶת. וְאֵיזוֹ הִיא אֲלוּנְתִּית? כְּדִתְנַן גַּבֵּי שַׁבָּת: עוֹשִׂין אֵנוֹמֵלִין וְאֵין עוֹשִׂין אֲלוּנְתִּית. וְאֵיזוֹ הִיא אֵנוֹמֵלִין וְאֵיזוֹ הִיא אֲלוּנְתִּית? אֵנוֹמֵלִין — יַיִן וּדְבַשׁ וּפִלְפְּלִין, אֲלוּנְתִּית — יַיִן יָשָׁן וּמַיִם צְלוּלִין וַאֲפַרְסְמוֹן, דְּעָבְדִי לְבֵי מַסּוּתָא.

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

רַבָּה וְרַב יוֹסֵף דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: יַיִן מָזוּג אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם גִּילּוּי, יַיִן מְבוּשָּׁל אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם נִיסּוּךְ. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: יַיִן מְבוּשָּׁל יֵשׁ בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם גִּילּוּי אוֹ אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם גִּילּוּי? תָּא שְׁמַע: הֵעִיד רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אִידִי עַל יַיִן מְבוּשָּׁל שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם גִּילּוּי.

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

רַבִּי יַנַּאי בַּר יִשְׁמָעֵאל חֲלַשׁ, עַל לְגַבֵּיהּ רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֶּן זֵירוּד וְרַבָּנַן לְשַׁיּוֹלֵי בֵּיהּ. יָתְבִי וְקָא מִבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: יַיִן מְבוּשָּׁל, יֵשׁ בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם גִּילּוּי אוֹ אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם גִּילּוּי? אֲמַר לְהוּ רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֶּן זֵירוּד: הָכִי אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ מִשּׁוּם גַּבְרָא רַבָּה, וּמַנּוּ? רַבִּי חִיָּיא: יַיִן מְבוּשָּׁל אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם גִּילּוּי. אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: נִסְמוֹךְ? מַחְוֵי לְהוּ רַבִּי יַנַּאי בַּר יִשְׁמָעֵאל: עָלַי וְעַל צַוָּארִי.

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

שְׁמוּאֵל וְאַבְלֵט הֲווֹ יָתְבִי, אַיְיתוֹ לְקַמַּיְיהוּ חַמְרָא מְבַשְּׁלָא, מַשְׁכֵיהּ לִידֵיהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲרֵי אָמְרוּ יַיִן מְבוּשָּׁל אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם יֵין נֶסֶךְ.

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

אַמְּתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא אִיגַּלִּויי לַהּ הָהוּא חַמְרָא מְבַשְּׁלָא, אֲתַאי לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא, אֲמַר לַהּ: הֲרֵי אָמְרוּ יַיִן מְבוּשָּׁל אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם גִּילּוּי. שַׁמָּעֵיהּ דְּרַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה אִיגַּלִּי לֵיהּ חַמְרָא מְזִיגָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הֲרֵי אָמְרוּ יַיִן מָזוּג אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם גִּילּוּי.

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

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דִּמְזִיג טוּבָא, אֲבָל מְזִיג וְלָא מְזִיג שָׁתֵי. וּמְזִיג וְלָא מְזִיג מִי שָׁתֵי? וְהָא רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא הֲוָה קָאָזֵיל בְּאַרְבָּא, וַהֲוָה נָקֵיט חַמְרָא בַּהֲדֵיהּ, וְחַזְיֵיהּ לְהָהוּא חִיוְיָא דְּצָרֵי וְאָתֵי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ לְשַׁמָּעֵיהּ: סַמִּי עֵינֵיהּ דְּדֵין. שְׁקֵיל קַלִּי מַיָּא שְׁדָא בֵּיהּ, וְסָר לַאֲחוֹרֵיהּ!

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

אַחַיָּיא מָסַר נַפְשֵׁיהּ, אַמְּזִיגָא לָא מְסַר נַפְשֵׁיהּ.

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

וְאַמְּזִיגָא לָא מָסַר נַפְשֵׁיהּ? וְהָא רַבִּי יַנַּאי הֲוָה בֵּי עַכְבּוֹרֵי, וְאָמְרִי לֵיהּ: בַּר הֶדְיָא הֲוָה בֵּי עַכְבּוֹרֵי, הֲווֹ יָתְבִי וַהֲווֹ קָא שָׁתוּ חַמְרָא מְזִיגָא. פָּשׁ לְהוּ חַמְרָא בְּכוּבָא, וּצְרוּנְהִי בִּפְרוֹנְקָא, וְחַזְיֵאּ לְהָהוּא חִיוְיָא דִּשְׁקֵיל מַיָּא וּרְמָא בְּכוּבָּא עַד דִּמְלָא בְּכוּבָּא, וּסְלֵיק חַמְרָא עִילָּוֵיה פְּרוֹנְקָא וְשָׁתֵי!

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

אָמְרִי: דְּמָזֵיג אִיהוּ שָׁתֵי, דְּמָזְגִי אַחֲרִינֵי לָא שָׁתֵי.

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

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא: פֵּירוּקָא לְסַכַּנְתָּא? אָמַר רָבָא: הִלְכְתָא — יַיִן מָזוּג יֵשׁ בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם גִּילּוּי, וְיֵשׁ בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם יֵין נֶסֶךְ; יַיִן מְבוּשָּׁל אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם גִּילּוּי, וְאֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם יֵין נֶסֶךְ.

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

שַׁמָּעֵיהּ דְּרַב חִלְקִיָּה בַּר טוֹבִי אִיגַּלַּי [לֵיהּ] הָהוּא קִיסְתָּא דְּמַיָּא, וַהֲוָה נָיֵים גַּבַּהּ. אֲתָא לְגַבֵּיהּ דְּרַב חִלְקִיָּה בַּר טוֹבִי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הֲרֵי אָמְרוּ ״אֵימַת יָשֵׁן עֲלֵיהֶן״, וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי בִּימָמָא, אֲבָל בְּלֵילְיָא — לָא. וְלָא הִיא, לָא שְׁנָא בִּימָמָא וְלָא שְׁנָא בְּלֵילְיָא, ״אֵימַת יָשֵׁן עֲלֵיהֶן״ לָא אָמְרִינַן.

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

רַב לָא שָׁתֵי [מַיָּא] מִבֵּי אֲרַמָּאָה, אָמַר: לָא זְהִירִי בְּגִילּוּי, מִבֵּי אַרְמַלְתָּא שָׁתֵי, אָמַר: סִירְכָא דְּגַבְרָא נְקִיטָא.

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

שְׁמוּאֵל לָא שָׁתֵי מַיָּא מִבֵּי אַרְמַלְתָּא, אָמַר: לֵית לַהּ אֵימְתָא דְּגַבְרָא וְלָא מְיכַסְּיָא מַיָּא, אֲבָל מִבֵּי אֲרַמָּאָה שָׁתֵי. נְהִי דְּאַגִּילּוּיָא לָא קָפְדִי, אַמְּנַקְּרוּתָא מִיהָא קָפְדִי. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: רַב לָא שָׁתֵי מַיָּא מִבֵּי אֲרַמָּאָה, אֲבָל מִבֵּי אַרְמַלְתָּא שָׁתֵי. שְׁמוּאֵל לָא שָׁתֵי מַיָּא, לָא מִבֵּי אֲרַמָּאָה וְלָא מִבֵּי אַרְמַלְתָּא.

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

אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: שָׁלֹשׁ יֵינוֹת הֵן, וְאֵין בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם גִּילּוּי, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: חַד, מָר, מָתוֹק. חַד — טִילָא חָרִיפָא דִּמְצָרֵי זִיקֵּי, מַר — יַרְנָקָא, מָתוֹק — חוּלְיָא. רַב חָמָא מַתְנֵי לְעִילּוּיָא: חַד — חֲמַר וּפִלְפְּלִין, מַר — אַפְּסִינְתִּין, מָתוֹק — מֵי בָּארְג.

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

אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: קְרִינָא אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם גִּילּוּי. מַאי קְרִינָא? אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: חַמְרָא חַלְיָא דְּאָתֵי מֵעַסְיָא. אָמַר רָבָא: וּבִמְקוֹמוֹ יֵשׁ בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם גִּילּוּי, מַאי טַעְמָא? חֲמַר מְדִינָה הוּא. אָמַר רָבָא: הַאי חַמְרָא דְּאַקְרֵים, עַד תְּלָתָא יוֹמֵי יֵשׁ בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם גִּילּוּי וּמִשּׁוּם יֵין נֶסֶךְ,

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

מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ — אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם גִּילּוּי, וְאֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם יֵין נֶסֶךְ. וּנְהַרְדָּעֵי אָמְרִי: אֲפִילּוּ לְבָתַר תְּלָתָא יוֹמֵי חָיְישִׁינַן מִשּׁוּם גִּילּוּי. מַאי טַעְמָא? זִימְנִין מִיקְּרֵי שָׁתֵי.

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

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: יַיִן תּוֹסֵס אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם גִּילּוּי, וְכַמָּה תְּסִיסָתוֹ? שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים. הַשַּׁחֲלַיִם אֵין בָּהֶם מִשּׁוּם גִּילּוּי, וּבְנֵי גוֹלָה נָהֲגוּ בָּהֶן אִיסּוּר. וְלָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דְּלֵית בְּהוּ חַלָּא, אֲבָל אִית בְּהוּ חַלָּא — מִיגָּרֵי בְּהוּ.

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

כּוּתָּח הַבַּבְלִי אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם גִּילּוּי, וּבְנֵי גוֹלָה נָהֲגוּ בּוֹ אִיסּוּר. אָמַר רַב מְנַשֵּׁי: אִי אִית בֵּיהּ נִקּוּרֵי — חָיְישִׁינַן. אָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָשֵׁי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מֵי טִיף טִיף אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם גִּילּוּי. אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: וְהוּא דְּעָבֵיד טִיף לַהֲדֵי טִיף טִיף.

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

אָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָשֵׁי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: פִּי תְאֵנָה אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם גִּילּוּי. כְּמַאן? כִּי הַאי תַּנָּא, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אוֹכֵל אָדָם עֲנָבִים וּתְאֵנִים בַּלַּיְלָה וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ, מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״שֹׁמֵר פְּתָאִים ה׳״.

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

אָמַר רַב סָפְרָא מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ דָּרוֹמָא: שְׁלֹשָׁה מִינֵי אֶרֶס הֵן, שֶׁל בָּחוּר — שׁוֹקֵעַ, שֶׁל בֵּינוֹנִי — מְפַעְפֵּעַ, וְשֶׁל זָקֵן — צָף. לְמֵימְרָא דִּכְמָה דְּקַשִּׁישׁ כְּחִישׁ חֵילֵיהּ? וְהָתַנְיָא: שְׁלֹשָׁה כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁמַּזְקִינִין גְּבוּרָה מִתּוֹסֶפֶת בָּהֶן, אֵלּוּ הֵן: דָּג, נָחָשׁ, וַחֲזִיר! כֹּחַ אוֹסוֹפֵי הוּא דְּקָא מוֹסֵיף, זִיהֲרֵיהּ קְלִישׁ.

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

שֶׁל בָּחוּר שׁוֹקֵעַ, לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? דְּתַנְיָא: חָבִית (שנתגלה) [שֶׁנִּתְגַּלְּתָה], אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשָּׁתוּ מִמֶּנָּה תִּשְׁעָה וְלֹא מֵתוּ — לֹא יִשְׁתֶּה מִמֶּנָּה עֲשִׂירִי. מַעֲשֶׂה הָיָה שֶׁשָּׁתוּ מִמֶּנּוּ תִּשְׁעָה וְלֹא מֵתוּ, וְשָׁתָה עֲשִׂירִי וָמֵת. אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: זֶהוּ שׁוֹקֵעַ.

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

וְכֵן אֲבַטִּיחַ שֶׁנִּתְגַּלְּתָה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָכְלוּ מִמֶּנָּה תִּשְׁעָה בְּנֵי אָדָם וְלֹא מֵתוּ, לֹא יֹאכַל מִמֶּנָּה עֲשִׂירִי. מַעֲשֶׂה הָיָה וְאָכְלוּ מִמֶּנָּה תִּשְׁעָה וְלֹא מֵתוּ, וְאָכַל עֲשִׂירִי וָמֵת. אָמַר רַבִּי: זֶהוּ שׁוֹקֵעַ.

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

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מַיִם שֶׁנִּתְגַּלּוּ — הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִשְׁפְּכֵם בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, וְלֹא יְרַבֵּיץ בָּהֶן אֶת הַבַּיִת, וְלֹא יְגַבֵּל בָּהֶן אֶת הַטִּיט, וְלֹא יַשְׁקֶה מֵהֶן לֹא בְּהֶמְתּוֹ וְלֹא בֶּהֱמַת חֲבֵירוֹ, וְלֹא יִרְחַץ בָּהֶן פָּנָיו יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו. אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים: מָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ סִירְטָא — אָסוּר, אֵין סִירְטָא — מוּתָּר.

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

אֲחֵרִים הַיְינוּ תַּנָּא קַמָּא! אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ גַּב הַיָּד וְגַב הָרֶגֶל וְרוּמָּנֵי דְּאַפֵּי.

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

אָמַר מָר: לֹא יַשְׁקֶה מֵהֶן לֹא בְּהֶמְתּוֹ וְלֹא בֶּהֱמַת חֲבֵירוֹ. וְהָתַנְיָא: אֲבָל מַשְׁקֵהוּ לְבֶהֱמַת עַצְמוֹ! כִּי תַּנְיָא הָהִיא — לְשׁוּנָּרָא. אִי הָכִי, דְּחַבְרֵיהּ נָמֵי? דְּחַבְרֵיהּ כָּחֵישׁ. דִּידֵיהּ נָמֵי כָּחֵישׁ? הָדַר בָּרֵיא. דְּחַבְרֵיהּ נָמֵי הָדַר בָּרֵיא! זִימְנִין דְּבָעֵי לְזַבּוֹנֵהּ, וּמַפְסֵיד לֵיהּ מִינֵּיהּ.

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

אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתֵירָא: שְׁלֹשָׁה יֵינוֹת הֵן — יֵין נֶסֶךְ אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה, וּמְטַמֵּא טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה בִּכְזַיִת.

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