עבודה זרה ס׳

עבודה זרה ס׳

וְאִידָּךְ שְׁרֵי, וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: עַד (הברזא) [בַּרְזָא] — חַמְרָא אֲסִיר, וְאִידָּךְ שְׁרֵי.

but the other wine in the barrel is permitted. There are those who say that Rav Pappa said: The wine until the stopper, i.e., in the upper portion of the barrel, is prohibited, but the other wine in the barrel, below the stopper, is permitted.

אָמַר רַב יֵימַר, כְּתַנָּאֵי: חָבִית שֶׁנִּקְּבָה, בֵּין מִפִּיהָ, בֵּין מִשּׁוּלֶיהָ, וּבֵין מִצִּידֶּיהָ, וְנָגַע בּוֹ טְבוּל יוֹם — טְמֵאָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מִפִּיהָ וּמִשּׁוּלֶיהָ — טְמֵאָה, מִצִּידֶּיהָ — טְהוֹרָה מִכָּאן וּמִכָּאן.

Rav Yeimar says: Rav Pappa’s ruling is subject to a dispute between tanna’im, as the mishna teaches (Tevul Yom 2:7): In the case of a barrel that was pierced, whether on its top, on its bottom, or on one of its sides, if one who immersed that day touched it, it is ritually impure. Rabbi Yehuda says: If it was pierced on its top or on its bottom, it is impure. If it was pierced on one of its sides, the wine is pure, whether it was touched from here or from there, i.e., on either side. Only the wine that he touched is rendered impure. According to the first version of Rav Pappa’s statement he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: גּוֹי אַדַּנָּא וְיִשְׂרָאֵל אַכּוּבָּא — חַמְרָא אֲסִיר, מַאי טַעְמָא? כִּי קָאָתֵי — מִכֹּחַ גּוֹי קָאָתֵי. יִשְׂרָאֵל אַדַּנָּא וְגוֹי אַכּוּבָּא — חַמְרָא שְׁרֵי, וְאִי מְצַדֵּד צַדּוֹדֵי — אֲסִיר.

§ Rav Pappa says: In a case where a gentile is pouring the wine from the barrel and a Jew is holding the beaker [kuva] into which it is poured, the wine is prohibited. What is the reason? When the wine comes out of the barrel, it comes out by force of the gentile’s action. In a case where a Jew is pouring the wine from the barrel and a gentile is holding the beaker into which it is poured, the wine is permitted. But if the gentile tilts the beaker to the side, the wine is prohibited.

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הַאי גּוֹי דְּדָרֵי זִיקָּא וְקָאָזֵיל יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲחוֹרֵיהּ, מַלְיָא — שְׁרֵי, דְּלָא מְקַרְקֵשׁ. חַסִּירָא — אֲסִיר, דִּלְמָא מְקַרְקֵשׁ. כּוּבָּא: מַלְיָא — אֲסִיר, דִּלְמָא נָגַע. חַסִּירָא — שְׁרֵי, דְּלָא נָגַע.

Rav Pappa says: In the case of this gentile who carries a sealed wineskin and a Jew is walking behind him and ensuring that the gentile does not touch the wine itself, the halakha depends on the circumstances. If the wineskin is full, the wine is permitted, as the wine in the wineskin is not shaken. If the wineskin is incompletely filled, the wine is prohibited, as perhaps the wine in the wineskin might have been shaken by the gentile, which would have the same halakha as wine poured as a libation. In the case of a beaker, which is open on top, if it is full the wine is prohibited, as perhaps the gentile might have touched the wine. If the beaker is incompletely filled, the wine is permitted, as the gentile did not touch the wine.

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: זִיקָא, בֵּין מַלְיָא וּבֵין חַסִּירָא — שְׁרֵי, מַאי טַעְמָא? אֵין דֶּרֶךְ נִיסּוּךְ בְּכָךְ.

Rav Ashi says: In the case of a wineskin, whether it is full or incompletely filled it is permitted. What is the reason that the wine is permitted even if it is shaken within the wineskin? It is because this is not the typical manner of offering a libation.

מַעְצְרָא זָיְירָא — רַב פַּפִּי שָׁרֵי, רַב אָשֵׁי, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב שִׁימִי בַּר אָשֵׁי, אָסַר.

§ With regard to a winepress where the grapes are pressed with beams, rather than trod by foot, Rav Pappi deemed permitted wine that is produced by a gentile, as the gentile does not touch the wine. Rav Ashi, and some say it was Rav Shimi bar Ashi, deemed the wine prohibited.

בְּכֹחוֹ, כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דַּאֲסִיר. כִּי פְּלִיגִי — בְּכֹחַ כֹּחוֹ. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: בְּכֹחַ כֹּחוֹ, כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דִּשְׁרֵי. כִּי פְּלִיגִי — בְּכֹחוֹ. הֲוָה עוֹבָדָא בְּכֹחַ כֹּחוֹ, וְאָסַר רַב יַעֲקֹב מִנְּהַר פְּקוֹד.

The Gemara comments: In a case where the wine is pressed by means of the gentile’s direct force everyone agrees that the wine is prohibited. They disagree when the wine is pressed by means of a force generated by his force. Conversely, there are those who say that in a case where the wine is pressed by means of a force generated by the gentile’s force everyone agrees that the wine is permitted. They disagree when the wine is pressed by means of the gentile’s direct force. The Gemara relates: There was an incident in which wine was pressed by means of a force generated by the gentile’s force, and Rav Yaakov from Nehar Pekod deemed the wine prohibited.

הָהִיא חָבִיתָא

§ The Gemara relates: There was a certain barrel

דְּאִיפְּקַעָה לְאוּרְכַּהּ, אִידְּרִי הָהוּא גּוֹי חַבְּקַהּ, שַׁרְיַיהּ רַפְרָם בַּר פָּפָּא, וְאִי תֵּימָא רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, לְזַבּוֹנֵי לְגוֹיִם. וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי דִּפְקַעָה לְאוּרְכַּהּ, אֲבָל לְפוּתְיַיהּ — אֲפִילּוּ בִּשְׁתִיָּה שְׁרֵי. מַאי טַעְמָא? מַעֲשֵׂה לְבֵינָה קָעָבֵיד.

that split lengthwise from top to bottom, and a certain gentile jumped up and encircled it with his arms in order to prevent the wine from spilling. Rafram bar Pappa, and some say it was Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, deemed it permitted to sell the wine to gentiles, as the wine was rendered prohibited only for drinking but not with regard to deriving benefit. The Gemara notes: This statement applies only in a case where it split lengthwise. But where the barrel split widthwise and the gentile held the top and bottom halves together, it is permitted even for drinking. What is the reason that the wine is permitted? The gentile is merely performing the action of a brick by weighing the barrel down, and he is not doing anything to the wine.

הָהוּא גּוֹי דְּאִשְׁתְּכַח דַּהֲוָה קָאֵי בְּמַעְצַרְתָּא, אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: אִי אִיכָּא טוֹפֵחַ לְהַטְפִּיחַ — בָּעֵי הַדָּחָה וּבָעֵי נִיגּוּב, וְאִי לָא — בְּהַדָּחָה בְּעָלְמָא סַגִּי לֵיהּ.

The Gemara relates: There was a certain gentile who was found standing in a winepress. Rav Ashi said: If there is enough wine in the winepress that it is moist enough to moisten other items, the winepress requires rinsing and requires a more thorough cleansing, as the Gemara will explain (74b). But if there is not enough wine to moisten other items, merely rinsing is sufficient for it.

מַתְנִי׳ נׇכְרִי שֶׁנִּמְצָא עוֹמֵד בְּצַד הַבּוֹר שֶׁל יַיִן, אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ מִלְוָה עָלָיו — אָסוּר, אֵין לוֹ מִלְוָה עָלָיו — מוּתָּר.

MISHNA: In the case of a gentile who was found standing next to the wine collection vat, if there is a loan owed by the owner of the wine vat to the gentile, the wine is prohibited. Since the gentile maintains that he has a right to the owner’s property he has no compunctions about touching the wine. But if there is no loan owed by the owner of the wine vat to the gentile, the wine is permitted, as it is assumed that the gentile did not touch the wine that was not his.

נָפַל לַבּוֹר וְעָלָה, מְדָדוֹ בְּקָנֶה, הִתִּיז אֶת הַצִּרְעָה בְּקָנֶה, אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה מְטַפֵּיחַ עַל פִּי חָבִית מְרוּתַּחַת — בְּכׇל אֵלּוּ הָיָה מַעֲשֶׂה וְאָמְרוּ: יִמָּכֵר, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַתִּיר. נָטַל אֶת הֶחָבִית וּזְרָקָהּ בַּחֲמָתוֹ לַבּוֹר, זֶה הָיָה מַעֲשֶׂה וְהִכְשִׁירוּ.

If a gentile fell into the wine collection vat and emerged from it, or if he measured the wine in the winepress with a pole without touching it with his hands, or if he cast a hornet out of the wine by means of a pole and the pole touched the wine, or where the gentile was removing the foam that was on the top of a fermenting barrel of wine; with regard to all these cases there was such an incident. And the Sages said that the wine may be sold to gentiles, as it is permitted to derive benefit from the wine, but not to drink it. And Rabbi Shimon deems the wine permitted even for drinking. In a case where a gentile took the barrel of wine and threw it, in his anger, into the wine collection vat, this was an incident that occurred and the Sages deemed the wine fit for drinking.

גְּמָ׳ אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: וְהוּא שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מִלְוָה עַל אוֹתוֹ יַיִן.

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that in the case of a gentile who was found standing next to a wine collection vat, if the owner of the vat owes money to the gentile the wine is prohibited. Shmuel says: And this halakha applies only when the loan includes the qualification that the gentile has a lien on that wine, as only then does the gentile feel that he is entitled to touch the wine.

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: מַתְנִיתִין נָמֵי דַּיְקָא, דִּתְנַן: הַמְטַהֵר יֵינוֹ שֶׁל נׇכְרִי וְנוֹתְנוֹ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ, וְהַלָּה כּוֹתֵב לוֹ: ״הִתְקַבַּלְתִּי מִמְּךָ מָעוֹת״ — מוּתָּר, אֲבָל אִם יִרְצֶה יִשְׂרָאֵל לְהוֹצִיאוֹ וְאֵין מַנִּיחוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּתֵּן לוֹ מְעוֹתָיו, זֶה הָיָה מַעֲשֶׂה בְּבֵית שְׁאָן וְאָסְרוּ.

Rav Ashi said: The wording of the mishna is also precise according to Shmuel’s interpretation, as we learned in the following mishna (61a): In the case of a Jew who renders the wine of a gentile permitted by treading the gentile’s grapes so that the wine can be sold to Jews, and he then places the wine in the gentile’s domain until he sells it, the halakha depends on the circumstances. If that one, the gentile, writes for the Jew: I received money from you in payment for the wine, even though he did not yet receive the actual payment, the wine is permitted. This is because the wine is considered the Jew’s property and there is no reason to suppose that the gentile might touch it. But in a case where the Jew desires to remove the wine and the gentile does not allow him to do so until the Jew gives him the money due to him, this was an incident that occurred in Beit She’an and the Sages deemed the wine prohibited.

טַעְמָא דְּאֵין מַנִּיחוֹ, הָא מַנִּיחוֹ שְׁרֵי, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: מִלְוָה עַל אוֹתוֹ יַיִן בָּעֵינַן. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

Rav Ashi explains: The reason that the wine is prohibited is that the gentile does not allow the Jew to remove the wine, and therefore the gentile is considered to have some degree of ownership of the wine. Therefore, one can infer that if the gentile allows him to remove the wine, the wine is permitted, even though the Jew still owes him money. One may conclude from the mishna that in order for the wine to be prohibited we require the loan to include the qualification that the gentile has a lien on that wine. The Gemara affirms: One may conclude Shmuel’s principle from the mishna.

נָפַל לַבּוֹר וְעָלָה. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁעָלָה מֵת, אֲבָל עָלָה חַי — אָסוּר. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: דְּדָמֵי עֲלֵיהּ כְּיוֹם אֵידָם.

§ The mishna teaches that if a gentile fell into the wine collection vat and emerged, it is not prohibited to derive benefit from the wine. Rav Pappa says: The Sages taught this halakha only in a case where the gentile emerged from the vat dead. But if he emerged alive, the wine is prohibited. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the wine is prohibited? Rav Pappa said: Since the gentile was rescued from death, he considers that day like their festival day, and he offers the wine as an idolatrous libation in thanksgiving.

מְדָדוֹ בְּקָנֶה וְכוּ׳. כׇּל אֵלּוּ הָיָה מַעֲשֶׂה וְאָמְרוּ: יִמָּכֵר, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַתִּיר. אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: יָנוּחוּ לוֹ לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּרָכוֹת עַל רֹאשׁוֹ, כְּשֶׁהוּא מַתִּיר — מַתִּיר אֲפִילּוּ בִּשְׁתִיָּה, וּכְשֶׁהוּא אוֹסֵר — אוֹסֵר אֲפִילּוּ בַּהֲנָאָה.

§ The mishna teaches that if a gentile measured the wine in the winepress with a pole, or if he cast a hornet out of the wine by means of a pole, or if he removed the foam on top of a fermenting barrel of wine, with regard to all these cases there was such an incident, and the Sages said that the wine may be sold to gentiles but one may not drink it. And Rabbi Shimon deems the wine permitted even for drinking. Rav Adda bar Ahava says: May blessings rest upon Rabbi Shimon’s head, as his reasoning is clear. When he deems the wine permitted, he deems it permitted even with regard to drinking, and when he deems the wine prohibited, he deems it prohibited even with regard to deriving benefit from it.

אָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בְּרֵיהּ דְּאַבָּא בַּר נַחְמָנִי, אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר רַב, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר זְעֵירִי: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: אֲמַר לִי אַבָּא בַּר חָנָן, הָכִי אָמַר זְעֵירִי: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. וְאֵין הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.

Rav Ḥiyya, son of Abba bar Naḥmani, says that Rav Ḥisda says that Rav says, and some say that Rav Ḥisda says that Ze’eiri says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. There are those who say that Rav Ḥisda says: Abba bar Ḥanan said to me: This is what Ze’eiri says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. Despite this, the Gemara concludes: But the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

נָטַל חָבִית וּזְרָקָהּ [בַּחֲמָתוֹ] לַבּוֹר, זֶה הָיָה מַעֲשֶׂה [וְהִכְשִׁירוּ]. אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: כׇּל שֶׁבַּזָּב טָמֵא בְּגוֹי עוֹשֶׂה יֵין נֶסֶךְ, כָּל שֶׁבַּזָּב טָהוֹר בְּגוֹי אֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה יֵין נֶסֶךְ.

§ The mishna teaches: With regard to the case where a gentile took a barrel of wine and threw it, in his anger, into the wine collection vat, this was an incident that occurred and the Sages deemed the wine fit for drinking. Rav Ashi says: With regard to any form of contact through which a zav renders an object ritually impure, in a case where a gentile has that same type of contact with wine, he renders it wine used for a libation. In the case of any form of contact through which a zav does not transmit ritual impurity, leaving an object ritually pure, a gentile does not render the wine with which he has contact wine used for a libation.

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: נָטַל אֶת הֶחָבִית וּזְרָקָהּ בַּחֲמָתוֹ לַבּוֹר, זֶה הָיָה מַעֲשֶׂה בְּבֵית שְׁאָן וְהִכְשִׁירוּ. בַּחֲמָתוֹ — אִין, שֶׁלֹּא בַּחֲמָתוֹ — לָא!

Rav Huna raised an objection to Rav Ashi from the mishna: With regard to the case where a gentile took the barrel of wine and threw it, in his anger, into the wine collection vat, this was an incident that occurred in Beit She’an and the Sages deemed the wine fit for drinking. One may infer that if the gentile threw the wine in his anger, yes, it is permitted. But if it was not in his anger the wine is not permitted, even though in the case of a zav, if he threw an object at a vessel, it does not render the vessel impure.