עבודה זרה לא

עבודה זרה לא

סְתָם יֵינָם — אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה, וּמְטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת מַשְׁקִין בִּרְבִיעִית. הַמַּפְקִיד יֵינוֹ אֵצֶל גּוֹי — אָסוּר בִּשְׁתִיָּה, וּמוּתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה.

It is prohibited to derive benefit from nondescript wine of a gentile, and the wine imparts the ritual impurity of liquids when it has the volume of one-quarter of a log. With regard to the wine of one who deposits his wine with a gentile, one is prohibited from drinking it, but one is permitted to derive benefit from it.

וְהָתְנַן: הַמַּפְקִיד פֵּירוֹתָיו אֵצֶל גּוֹי, הֲרֵי הֵן כְּפֵירוֹתָיו שֶׁל גּוֹי לִשְׁבִיעִית וּלְמַעֲשֵׂר! כְּגוֹן שֶׁיִּיחֵד לוֹ קֶרֶן זָוִית.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Bekhorot 11b): With regard to one who deposits his produce with a gentile, it has the status of the produce of a gentile with regard to the halakhot of the Sabbatical Year and with regard to tithe, as the gentile might have exchanged the Jew’s produce with untithed produce or produce of the Sabbatical Year. According to this logic, wine deposited with a gentile should be entirely prohibited, due to the concern that the gentile exchanged it with his own. The Gemara answers: It is permitted for one to derive benefit from the wine in a case where the gentile designated a corner for the Jew’s wine, i.e., if the wine was locked away in a specific place to which only a Jew has access.

אִי הָכִי, בִּשְׁתִיָּה נָמֵי לִישְׁתְּרֵי! דְּהָא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אִקְּלַע לְפָרוֹד, אָמַר: כְּלוּם יֵשׁ מִשְׁנַת בַּר קַפָּרָא? תְּנָא לֵיהּ רַבִּי תַּנְחוּם דְּמִן פָּרוֹד: הַמַּפְקִיד יֵינוֹ אֵצֶל גּוֹי — מוּתָּר בִּשְׁתִיָּה.

The Gemara questions this: If that is so, drinking from the wine should also be permitted. As Rabbi Yoḥanan once happened to come to Parod, where the deceased tanna bar Kappara had lived. When he arrived, he said: Is there any Mishna of bar Kappara here? In response, Rabbi Tanḥum of Parod taught him the following baraita, citing bar Kappara: With regard to one who deposits his wine with a gentile, drinking from the wine is permitted.

קָרֵי עֲלֵיהּ ״מְקוֹם שֶׁיִּפּוֹל הָעֵץ שָׁם יְהוּ״, ״שָׁם יְהוּ״ סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ? אֶלָּא שָׁם יְהוּ פֵּירוֹתָיו.

Upon hearing this, Rabbi Yoḥanan read the following verse about him: “Where the tree falls, there it shall be” (Ecclesiastes 11:3). Does it enter your mind that this means that the tree itself will be there? It is obvious that a fallen tree lands where it falls. Rather, the verse is saying: There its fruits shall be. The verse is a metaphor for a Sage, and its fruits represent his disciples. Rabbi Yoḥanan was intimating that although bar Kappara may have died, Rabbi Tanḥum, his disciple, perpetuates his wisdom.

אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: לָא קַשְׁיָא — הָא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, הָא רַבָּנַן.

In any event, it is apparent from the baraita quoted by Rabbi Tanḥum that there is a case in which it is permitted to drink wine deposited with a gentile. This contradicts the statement of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira. Rabbi Zeira said that it is not difficult. This baraita, which permits drinking wine deposited with a gentile, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, whereas that statement of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

דְּתַנְיָא: אֶחָד הַלּוֹקֵחַ וְאֶחָד הַשּׂוֹכֵר בַּיִת בַּחֲצֵירוֹ שֶׁל גּוֹי, וּמִלְּאוּהוּ יַיִן, וּמַפְתֵּחַ אוֹ חוֹתָם בְּיַד יִשְׂרָאֵל — רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מַתִּיר, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹסְרִין.

Rabbi Zeira elaborates: As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to both one who purchases or one who rents a house located in a gentile’s courtyard, and they filled the house with containers of wine, and the key to the house or a seal is in the possession of a Jew, so that the gentile cannot access the wine, in which case it is even more secure than when a corner is designated for the Jew’s wine, Rabbi Eliezer permits the wine, and the Rabbis prohibit it.

אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר נַחְמָנִי, אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר רַב, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר זְעֵירִי, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: אֲמַר לִי אַבָּא בַּר חָמָא, הָכִי אָמַר זְעֵירִי: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר.

Rabbi Ḥiyya, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Naḥmani, says that Rav Ḥisda says that Rav says, and some say that Rav Ḥisda says that Ze’eiri says, and some say that Rav Ḥisda says: Abba bar Ḥama said to me that this is what Ze’eiri said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: הַכֹּל מִשְׁתַּמֵּר בְּחוֹתָם אֶחָד, חוּץ מִן הַיַּיִן שֶׁאֵין מִשְׁתַּמֵּר בְּחוֹתָם אֶחָד. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ יַיִן מִשְׁתַּמֵּר בְּחוֹתָם אֶחָד. וְלָא פְּלִיגִי — הָא כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, הָא כְּרַבָּנַן.

Rabbi Elazar says: All substances are sufficiently secured by one seal, except wine, which is not sufficiently secured by one seal. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Even wine is secured by one seal. And they do not disagree in their reasoning. Rather, this opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, and that opinion of Rabbi Elazar is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: הַכֹּל מִשְׁתַּמֵּר בְּחוֹתָם בְּתוֹךְ חוֹתָם, חוּץ מִן הַיַּיִן שֶׁאֵין מִשְׁתַּמֵּר בְּחוֹתָם בְּתוֹךְ חוֹתָם. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ יַיִן מִשְׁתַּמֵּר בְּחוֹתָם בְּתוֹךְ חוֹתָם. וְתַרְוַיְיהוּ כְּרַבָּנַן, מָר סָבַר: כִּי פְּלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּחוֹתָם אֶחָד, אֲבָל בְּחוֹתָם בְּתוֹךְ חוֹתָם שָׁרוּ. וּמָר סָבַר: אֲפִילּוּ חוֹתָם בְּתוֹךְ חוֹתָם אָסְרִי.

There are those who say that Rabbi Elazar says: All substances are secured by a seal within a seal, i.e., two seals, except wine, which is not secured by a seal within a seal. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Even wine is secured by a seal within a seal. And both hold in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis: One Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, holds that when the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer, it is with regard to one seal, but in the case of a seal within a seal, they concede that there is no concern that the gentile might have opened it, and therefore they permit the wine. And one Sage, Rabbi Elazar, holds that they prohibited even wine that was secured by a seal within a seal.

הֵיכִי דָּמֵי חוֹתָם בְּתוֹךְ חוֹתָם? אָמַר רָבָא: אַגָּנָא דְּפוּמָּא דְּחָבִיתָא שְׁרִיקָא וַחֲתִימָא — הָוֵי חוֹתָם בְּתוֹךְ חוֹתָם, וְאִי לָא — לָא. דִּיקּוּלָא וּמִיהַדַּק — הָוֵי חוֹתָם בְּתוֹךְ חוֹתָם, לָא מִיהַדַּק — לָא הָוֵי חוֹתָם בְּתוֹךְ חוֹתָם. נוֹד בְּדִיסַקַּיָּא, חֲתִימַת פִּיו לְמַטָּה — הָוֵי חוֹתָם בְּתוֹךְ חוֹתָם, פִּיו לְמַעְלָה — לָא הָוֵי חוֹתָם בְּתוֹךְ חוֹתָם, וְכִי כַּיִיף פּוּמֵּיהּ לְגָיו וְצַיִיר וַחֲתִים — הָוֵי חוֹתָם בְּתוֹךְ חוֹתָם.

The Gemara asks: What is a seal within a seal like? Rava says: A basin placed over the mouth of a barrel that is smeared with clay and stamped with a seal is considered a seal within a seal. And if not, it is not considered a seal within a seal. If a basket is placed over a barrel and is fastened to it, this is a seal within a seal; if it is not fastened to the barrel, it is not a seal within a seal. With regard to a wineskin that is placed in a sack [disakaya], if the wineskin’s stopper is facing downward, this is a seal within a seal; if its stopper is facing upward, this is not a seal within a seal. And if he bends the wineskin’s bottleneck inward and ties the sack and seals it, this is also considered a seal within a seal.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן, בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיוּ אוֹמְרִים: יַיִן שֶׁל עֵין כּוּשִׁי אָסוּר מִפְּנֵי בִּירַת סְרִיקָא, וְשֶׁל בַּרְקָתָא אָסוּר מִפְּנֵי כְּפַר פַּרְשַׁאי, וְשֶׁל זַגְדוֹר אָסוּר מִפְּנֵי כְּפַר שָׁלֵים. חָזְרוּ לוֹמַר: חָבִיּוֹת פְּתוּחוֹת אֲסוּרוֹת, סְתוּמוֹת מוּתָּרוֹת.

§ The Sages taught: At first, the Sages would say that wine from the Samaritan city of Ein Kushi is prohibited, due to the concern that it might have come into contact with the idolatrous inhabitants of Birat Serika, and similarly the wine of Barkata is prohibited due to the idolatrous inhabitants of the village of Parshai, and the wine of Zagdor is prohibited due to the village of Shaleim. Subsequently, they retracted and began saying: Open barrels are prohibited but sealed barrels are permitted.

מֵעִיקָּרָא מַאי סְבוּר, וּלְבַסּוֹף מַאי סְבוּר? מֵעִיקָּרָא סְבוּר: אֵין כּוּתִי מַקְפִּיד עַל מַגַּע גּוֹי, לָא שְׁנָא פְּתוּחוֹת וְלָא שְׁנָא סְתוּמוֹת. וּלְבַסּוֹף סְבוּר: כִּי לָא קָפֵיד אַפְּתוּחוֹת, אַסְּתוּמוֹת מִקְפָּיד קָפֵיד.

The Gemara asks: What did they reason initially, and what did they reason ultimately? The Gemara answers: Initially they reasoned: A Samaritan is not particular about the touch of an idolatrous gentile, and there is no difference in this regard between open barrels and sealed barrels. And ultimately they reasoned: When Samaritans are not particular about a gentile’s touch, this is only with regard to open barrels, but with regard to sealed barrels, they are particular. Since Samaritans ensure that gentiles do not handle sealed barrels of wine, this wine is permitted.

וּסְתוּמוֹת מוּתָּרוֹת? וּרְמִינְהִי:

The Gemara asks: But are sealed barrels permitted? And the Gemara raises a contradiction against this notion

הַשּׁוֹלֵחַ חָבִית שֶׁל יַיִן בְּיַד כּוּתִי, וְשֶׁל צִיר וְשֶׁל מוּרְיָיס בְּיַד גּוֹי, אִם מַכִּיר חוֹתָמוֹ וּסְתָמוֹ — מוּתָּר, אִם לָאו — אָסוּר!

from the following baraita: With regard to one who sends a barrel of wine in the hands of a Samaritan, or a barrel of fish brine or a barrel of fish stew in the hands of a gentile, if he recognizes his seal and his manner of closing the barrel, it is permitted; if he does not recognize them, it is prohibited. Apparently, a sealed barrel is permitted only when it is recognizable.

אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: לָא קַשְׁיָא — כָּאן בָּעִיר, כָּאן בַּדֶּרֶךְ.

Rabbi Zeira said that this is not difficult. Here, the first baraita is referring to barrels located in a city; there, the second baraita is referring to barrels that the Samaritan carries on the road. Sealed barrels are permitted in a city because the Samaritan is careful to ensure that gentiles do not touch them in front of anyone, so that he does not forfeit the business of Jews. While traveling he is not concerned, as he assumes that no one will discover that the gentile came into contact with the wine.

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: מִידֵּי הָנָךְ דְּעִיר לָא בְּדֶרֶךְ אָתוּ? אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: בֵּין הַגִּיתּוֹת שָׁנִינוּ, כֵּיוָן דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אָפְכִי, מִירְתַת, אֲמַר: הַשְׁתָּא אִי חָזוּ לִי מַפְסְדוּ לִי.

Rabbi Yirmeya objects to this: Didn’t these barrels located in the city come by the road as well? Rather, Rabbi Yirmeya says: We learned the baraita that permits sealed barrels only in reference to those that are located between the winepresses. Since everyone is found there, the Samaritan is apprehensive, as he says to himself: Now, if someone sees me allowing a gentile to handle the wine they will cause me to lose my profit, as Jews will not purchase it.

אִתְּמַר: מִפְּנֵי מָה אָסְרוּ שֵׁכָר שֶׁל גּוֹיִם? רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: מִשּׁוּם חַתְנוּת, רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: מִשּׁוּם גִּילּוּי.

It was stated: For what reason did the Sages prohibit the beer of gentiles? Rami bar Ḥama says that Rabbi Yitzḥak says: It is due to the concern that Jews will befriend gentiles while drinking with them, which might lead to marriage with gentiles. Rav Naḥman said: It is due to the concern of exposure.

אַגִּילּוּי דְּמַאי? אִילֵּימָא גִּילּוּי דְּנַזְיָיתָא — אֲנַן נָמֵי מְגַלֵּינַן! וְאֶלָּא דְּחָבִיתָא — אֲנַן נָמֵי מְגַלֵּינַן! לָא צְרִיכָא, בְּאַתְרָא דִּמְצַלּוּ מַיָּא.

The Gemara asks: With regard to what form of exposure is there a concern? If we say that the concern is with regard to exposure of the vat, we too expose the vat, and there is no reason to prohibit gentiles’ beer more than that of Jews. And if you say: Rather, the concern is for exposure of the barrel, we also expose barrels. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to prohibit the beer in a place where the water used to brew it is allowed to settle.

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה יָשָׁן תִּשְׁתְּרֵי! דְּאָמַר רַבִּי: יָשָׁן מוּתָּר — אֵין מַנִּיחוֹ לְיַישֵּׁן, הֶחְמִיץ מוּתָּר — אֵין מַנִּיחוֹ לְהַחְמִיץ. גְּזֵירָה יָשָׁן אַטּוּ חָדָשׁ.

The Gemara asks: If that is so, aged beer should be permitted, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: A substance that might contain exposed water but has aged is permitted, since the poison does not allow it to age, as it goes bad before it grows old. Similarly, if it soured it is permitted, because the poison impairs the taste but does not allow it to sour. Why, then, is all beer prohibited? The Gemara answers: The Sages issued a rabbinic decree with regard to aged beer due to the concern with regard to new beer.

רַב פָּפָּא מַפְּיקִין לֵיהּ (לאבבא) [אַבָּבָא] דְּחָנוּתָא, וְשָׁתֵי. רַב אַחַאי מַיְיתוּ לֵיהּ לְבֵיתֵיהּ, וְשָׁתֵי. וְתַרְוַיְיהוּ מִשּׁוּם חַתְנוּת, רַב אַחַאי עָבֵיד הַרְחָקָה יַתִּירְתָּא.

§ The Gemara cites the opinions of various Sages with regard to beer. Rav Pappa had them bring out the beer belonging to gentiles from the store to the entrance of the store, and he would drink it outside the store. Rav Aḥai had them bring the beer to his house, and he would drink it there. And both of them drank the beer away from the presence of gentiles due to concern about marriage with gentiles. The Gemara notes that Rav Aḥai established an extreme preventive measure for himself beyond what is required by halakha.

רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר בִּיסְנָא אִיקְּלַע לְמַרְגְּוָאן, אַיְיתוֹ לֵיהּ חַמְרָא וְלָא אִשְׁתִּי, אַיְיתוֹ לֵיהּ שִׁיכְרָא וְלָא אִשְׁתִּי. בִּשְׁלָמָא חַמְרָא מִשּׁוּם שִׁימְצָא, שִׁיכְרָא מִשּׁוּם מַאי? מִשּׁוּם שִׁימְצָא דְּשִׁימְצָא.

The Gemara relates that Rav Shmuel bar Bisna happened to come to Marguan, and they brought him wine but he did not drink it. Next they brought him beer but he did not drink it. The Gemara asks: Granted, he did not drink the wine due to the trace [shimtza] of libations, but due to what reason did he refrain from drinking beer? It was due to concern for the trace of a trace, i.e., he did not drink beer due to concern about drinking wine.

אָמַר רַב: הַאי שִׁיכְרָא דַּאֲרַמָּאָה שְׁרֵי, וְחִיָּיא בְּרִי לָא נִישְׁתֵּי מִינֵּיהּ. מָה נַפְשָׁךְ? אִי שְׁרֵי — לְכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא שְׁרֵי, אִי אֲסִיר — לְכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אֲסִיר!

Rav says: This Aramean beer is permitted, but my son Ḥiyya does not drink from it. The Gemara asks: Whichever way you look at this matter, Rav’s statement is difficult: If the beer is permitted, then it is permitted to everyone, and there is no reason for his son to refrain from drinking it. And if it is prohibited, it is prohibited to everyone, and why would Rav say it is permitted?

אֶלָּא, רַב סָבַר מִשּׁוּם גִּילּוּיָא, וְאָזֵיל מְרוֹרָא דִּכְשׁוּתָא וְקָלֵי לֵיהּ זִיהֲרֵיהּ, וְדִלְקֵי מַלְקֵי לֵיהּ טְפֵי, וְחִיָּיא בְּרִי הוֹאִיל וּלְקֵי לָא נִישְׁתֵּי מִינֵּיהּ.

The Gemara explains: Rather, Rav holds that the prohibition is due to exposure, but the bitterness of the hops in the beer goes and impairs the snake’s venom, so that it is safe for an average person to drink. But a person of weak constitution is weakened further by the impaired venom, and Rav was saying: In the case of my son Ḥiyya, since he is weak, he does not drink from it.

אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כׇּל הַשְּׁרָצִים יֵשׁ לָהֶן אֶרֶס, שֶׁל נָחָשׁ מֵמִית, שֶׁל שְׁרָצִים אֵינוֹ מֵמִית. אֲמַר לֵיהּ שְׁמוּאֵל לְחִיָּיא בַּר רַב: בַּר אַרְיָא, תָּא וְאֵימָא לָךְ מִילְּתָא מְעַלְּיָיתָא דַּהֲוָה אָמַר רַב אֲבוּךְ, הָכִי אָמַר אֲבוּךְ: הָנֵי אַרַמָּאֵי זוּקָאנֵי — (דַּהֲווֹ שָׁתוּ) [מִשּׁוּם דְּשָׁתוּ] גִּילּוּיָא, (וְלָא מִתוּ) [וְהַאי דְּלָא מָיְיתִי] — אַיְּידֵי דְּאָכְלִי שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים חֲבִיל גּוּפַיְיהוּ.

Shmuel says: All creeping animals possess venom; that of a snake kills, whereas the venom of other creeping animals does not kill. Shmuel said to Ḥiyya bar Rav: Son of a lion! Come and I will say to you a superior matter that your father, Rav, said. This is what your father said: These Arameans are swollen [zukanei] because they drink exposed liquids, but they did not die from doing so since they eat repugnant creatures and creeping animals, which heat their bodies and thereby render them less susceptible to the venom.

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף:

Rav Yosef says: