עבודה זרה סט

עבודה זרה סט

נְפַל לְגוֹ חַלָּא, מַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הִילֵּל לְרַב אָשֵׁי: הֲוָה עוֹבָדָא בֵּי רַב כָּהֲנָא, וַאֲסַר רַב כָּהֲנָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָהוּא אִימַּרְטוּטֵי אִימַּרְטַט.

If a mouse fell into vinegar, what is the halakha? Does it enhance its flavor? Rav Hillel said to Rav Ashi: There was such an incident in the study hall of Rav Kahana, and Rav Kahana deemed the vinegar forbidden. This indicates that it enhances the flavor. Rav Ashi said to him: This is not a proof. That mouse was dismembered, and Rav Kahana deemed the vinegar forbidden due to concern that one might consume a substantive piece of the mouse in the vinegar, which is prohibited regardless of the taste.

רָבִינָא סְבַר לְשַׁעוֹרֵי בִּמְאָה וְחַד, אָמַר: לָא גָּרַע מִתְּרוּמָה, דִּתְנַן: תְּרוּמָה עוֹלָה בְּאֶחָד וּמֵאָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב תַּחְלִיפָא בַּר גִּיזָּא לְרָבִינָא: דִּלְמָא כְּתַבְלִין שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה בִּקְדֵירָה דָּמֵי, דְּלָא בָּטֵיל טַעְמַיְיהוּ!

The Gemara relates: Ravina thought that the quantity of vinegar necessary for nullifying the flavor of the mouse should be calculated at 101 times the volume of the mouse. He said: It should not be rendered worse, i.e., more stringent, than teruma, which is nullified by 101 times its volume in a mixture. This is as we learned in a mishna (Terumot 4:7): Teruma is nullified in a mixture by 101 times its volume of permitted food. Rav Taḥlifa bar Giza said to Ravina: Perhaps this case is similar to spice of teruma in a pot, whose flavor is not nullified even by 101 times its volume of permitted food, as the flavor imparted by spice is exceptionally strong.

רַב אַחַאי שַׁיעַר בְּחַלָּא בְּחַמְשִׁין, רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא שַׁיעַר בְּשִׁיכְרָא בְּשִׁיתִּין.

Rav Aḥai calculated the amount of vinegar necessary to nullify the flavor of the mouse at fifty times its volume. Although forbidden food in a mixture usually requires the presence of sixty times its volume of permitted food to be nullified, vinegar has a sharp enough flavor that it nullifies the mouse with less. Rav Shmuel, son of Rav Ika, calculated the amount of beer necessary for nullifying the mouse at sixty times the volume of the mouse.

וְהִלְכְתָא: אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי בְּשִׁיתִּין, וְכֵן כׇּל אִיסּוּרִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה.

The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that this and that, both vinegar and beer, nullify the mouse with sixty times its volume, and so is the ruling for all prohibitions in the Torah.

מַתְנִי׳ נׇכְרִי שֶׁהָיָה מַעֲבִיר עִם יִשְׂרָאֵל כַּדֵּי יַיִן מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם, אִם הָיָה בְּחֶזְקַת הַמִּשְׁתַּמֵּר — מוּתָּר. אִם הוֹדִיעוֹ שֶׁהוּא מַפְלִיג כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּשְׁתּוֹם וְיִסְתּוֹם וְיִגּוֹב. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּפְתַּח אֶת הֶחָבִית וְיִגּוֹף וְתִיגּוֹב.

MISHNA: With regard to a gentile who was transporting barrels of wine from one place to another place together with a Jew, if the wine was under the presumption of being supervised, it is permitted. But if the Jew notified him that he was going far away, the wine is forbidden if the Jew left for a sufficient amount of time for the gentile to bore a hole [sheyishtom] in the barrel, seal it again with plaster, and for the plaster to dry. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The wine is forbidden only if it was sufficient time for the gentile to open the barrel by removing the stopper altogether, stop it again by making a new stopper, and for the new stopper to dry.

הַמַּנִּיחַ יֵינוֹ בְּקָרוֹן אוֹ בִּסְפִינָה, וְהָלַךְ לוֹ בְּקָפֶנְדַּרְיָא, נִכְנַס לִמְדִינָה וְרָחַץ — מוּתָּר.

With regard to one who placed his wine in a wagon or on a ship with a gentile, and went on his way by a shortcut [bekappendarya], such that the gentile does not know when the Jew will encounter him, even if the Jew entered the city and bathed, the wine is permitted, because the gentile would not use the wine for a libation, for fear the owner might catch him at it.

אִם הוֹדִיעוֹ שֶׁהוּא מַפְלִיג — כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּשְׁתּוֹם, וְיִסְתּוֹם, וְיִגּוֹב. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּפְתַּח אֶת הֶחָבִית, וְיִגּוֹף, וְתִיגּוֹב.

If the Jew informed the gentile that he was going away for a long period of time, the wine is forbidden if it was sufficient time for the gentile to bore a hole in the barrel, seal it again with plaster, and for the plaster to dry. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: It is forbidden only if it was sufficient time for him to open the barrel by removing the stopper altogether, stop it again, and for the new stopper to dry.

הַמַּנִּיחַ נׇכְרִי בַּחֲנוּת, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֹּצֵא וְנִכְנָס — מוּתָּר, וְאִם הוֹדִיעוֹ שֶׁהוּא מַפְלִיג — כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּשְׁתּוֹם וְיִסְתּוֹם וְיִגּוֹב. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּפְתַּח אֶת הֶחָבִית וְיִגּוֹף וְתִיגּוֹב.

With regard to one who left a gentile in his shop, even if the Jew went out and came in and was not there all the time, the wine is permitted. But if the Jew informed the gentile that he was going away for a long period of time, the wine is forbidden if it was sufficient time for the gentile to bore a hole in the barrel, seal it again with plaster, and for the plaster to dry. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The wine is forbidden only if it was sufficient time for him to open the barrel, stop it again, and for the new stopper to dry.

הָיָה אוֹכֵל עִמּוֹ עַל הַשּׁוּלְחָן, וְהִנִּיחַ לְגִינִין עַל הַשּׁוּלְחָן וְלָגִין עַל הַדּוּלְבְּקִי, וְהִנִּיחוֹ וְיָצָא — מַה שֶּׁעַל הַשּׁוּלְחָן אָסוּר, שֶׁעַל הַדּוּלְבְּקִי מוּתָּר. וְאִם אָמַר לוֹ: הֱוֵי מוֹזֵג וְשׁוֹתֶה — אַף שֶׁעַל הַדּוּלְבְּקִי אָסוּר. חָבִיּוֹת פְּתוּחוֹת אֲסוּרוֹת, סְתוּמוֹת מוּתָּרוֹת, כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּפְתַּח וְיִגּוֹף וְתִיגּוֹב.

If a Jew was eating with a gentile at the table, and left jugs [laginin] of wine on the table and a jug on the side table [hadulebaki], and he left it and went out, what is on the table is forbidden, as it is likely that the gentile handled it, whereas what is on the side table is permitted. But if the Jew said to the gentile: Mix water with the wine and drink, even the jug that is on the side table is forbidden. Similarly, open barrels are forbidden, but sealed barrels are permitted unless the Jew was out of the room for sufficient time for the gentile to open the barrel by removing the stopper, and stop it again by making a new stopper, and for the new stopper to dry.

גְּמָ׳ הֵיכִי דָמֵי ״בְּחֶזְקַת הַמִּשְׁתַּמֵּר״? כִּדְתַנְיָא: הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיוּ חֲמָרָיו וּפוֹעֲלָיו טְעוּנִין טְהָרוֹת, אֲפִילּוּ הִפְלִיג מֵהֶן יוֹתֵר מִמִּיל — טׇהֳרוֹתָיו טְהוֹרוֹת, וְאִם אָמַר לָהֶן: ״לְכוּ וַאֲנִי בָּא אַחֲרֵיכֶם״, כֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּתְעַלְּמָה עֵינוֹ מֵהֶם — טׇהֳרוֹתָיו טְמֵאוֹת.

GEMARA: What are the circumstances described by the phrase: Under the presumption of being supervised? The Gemara explains: It is as it is taught in a baraita: If one’s donkey drivers and laborers were unreliable with regard to ritual impurity [amei ha’aretz], and they were laden with wine or produce that was ritually pure, and he had instructed them not to tamper with it but he does not know whether or not they heeded him, even if he went away from them to a distance of more than a mil, his pure items are still pure, as it may be presumed that they heeded his instructions. But if he said to them: Go and I will come after you, so that they knew he would not be going with them, then once they are out of his sight his pure items are impure.

מַאי שְׁנָא רֵישָׁא, וּמַאי שְׁנָא סֵיפָא? אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק: רֵישָׁא בִּמְטַהֵר חֲמָרָיו וּפוֹעֲלָיו לְכָךְ.

The Gemara asks: What is different in the first clause, where the produce is pure, and what is different in the latter clause, where it is impure? Rav Yitzḥak said: The ruling of the first clause is stated with regard to a case where he purified his donkey drivers and laborers for this assignment by having them immerse so they would not transfer impurity to the produce.

אִי הָכִי, סֵיפָא נָמֵי? אֵין עַם הָאָרֶץ מַקְפִּיד עַל מַגַּע חֲבֵירוֹ. אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ רֵישָׁא נָמֵי נֵימָא הָכִי!

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If that is so, in the latter clause this would also apply. The Gemara answers: An am ha’aretz is not punctilious about contact with another person. Although they themselves were purified, they may have met another am ha’aretz on the way, and the produce would be rendered impure by him. The Gemara further objects: If so, then let us say so even in the first clause; the produce should be impure in that case as well.

אָמַר רָבָא:

Rava said:

בְּבָא לָהֶם דֶּרֶךְ עֲקַלָּתוֹן. אִי הָכִי, סֵיפָא נָמֵי? כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר לָהֶם ״לְכוּ וַאֲנִי בָּא אַחֲרֵיכֶם״, סָמְכָא דַּעְתַּיְיהוּ.

It is a case where he came to them in a roundabout way, such that they would not know from where he might appear, and they would be afraid to tamper with the goods because he might catch them in the act. The Gemara objects: If that is so, this can apply to the latter clause also. The Gemara answers: In the case of the latter clause, since he said to them: Go and I will come after you, their minds are at ease that he will not surprise them.

הַמַּנִּיחַ נׇכְרִי בַּחֲנוּתוֹ כּוּ׳. הַמַּנִּיחַ יֵינוֹ בְּקָרוֹן אוֹ בִּסְפִינָה כּוּ׳. וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי תְּנָא נׇכְרִי — דְּסָבַר: דִּלְמָא אָתֵי וְחָזֵי לֵיהּ, אֲבָל בְּקָרוֹן אוֹ בִּסְפִינָה — אֵימָא דְּמַפְלֵיג לַהּ לִסְפִינְתֵּיהּ וְעָבֵיד מַאי דְּבָעֵי.

§ The mishna teaches similar cases, including the case of one who left a gentile in his shop, and the case of one who placed his wine in a wagon or on a ship. The Gemara explains: And it is necessary for the mishna to cite all these cases, even though they appear similar, as, had the mishna taught only the case of the gentile transporting a Jew’s barrels, one might assume that the reason there is no concern that the gentile used the wine in that case is because he thinks that perhaps the owner will come and see him. But in a wagon or on a ship, one might say that he can take his ship far off and do what he desires in such a way that the owner cannot see him.

וְאִי תְּנָא בְּקָרוֹן אוֹ בִּסְפִינָה, מִשּׁוּם דְּסָבַר: דִּלְמָא אָתֵי בְּאוֹרְחָא אַחֲרִיתִי וְקָאֵי אַגּוּדָּא וְחָזֵי לִי, אֲבָל נׇכְרִי בַּחֲנוּתוֹ אֵימָא: אָחֵיד לֵהּ לְבָבָא וְעָבֵיד כֹּל דְּבָעֵי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

And had the mishna taught only the case where the Jew placed his wine in a wagon or on a ship, one might assume that the concern there is because the gentile thinks: Perhaps he will come on a different road or stand on the bank of the river and see me. But in the case of a gentile in his shop, one might say that he can hold the door closed and do whatever he desires with no concern of being seen. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that in all of these cases the same ruling applies, and there is no concern unless the Jew informed the gentile that he is going a great distance away.

אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּשֶׁל סִיד, אֲבָל בְּשֶׁל טִיט — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּפְתַּח וְיִגּוֹף וְיִגּוֹב.

§ There is a dispute in the mishna with regard to the length of time that causes the wine to be rendered forbidden if the owner notified the gentile that he is going off some distance. Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The dispute is only with regard to the case of a stopper made of lime plaster, in which a hole can be sealed without being detected; but with regard to the case of a stopper made of clay, in which a patch would be detected, everyone agrees that the wine is forbidden only if there was enough time for the gentile to open the barrel by removing the stopper entirely, stop it again with a new stopper, and for the new stopper to dry.

מֵיתִיבִי: אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל לַחֲכָמִים: וַהֲלֹא סִתּוּמוֹ נִיכָּר בֵּין מִלְּמַעְלָה וּבֵין מִלְּמַטָּה.

The Gemara raises an objection to this explanation of the dispute from a baraita: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said to the Rabbis: But isn’t the sealing of the hole noticeable both from above and from below, and therefore the gentile will be wary of doing so?

אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא בְּשֶׁל טִיט מַחְלוֹקֶת, הַיְינוּ דְּקָתָנֵי: סִתּוּמוֹ נִיכָּר בֵּין מִלְּמַעְלָה וּבֵין מִלְּמַטָּה, אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ בְּשֶׁל סִיד מַחְלוֹקֶת, בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַטָּה יְדִיעַ, אֶלָּא לְמַעְלָה הָא לָא יְדִיעַ.

The Gemara explains the objection: Granted, if you say that the dispute is also with regard to a stopper made of clay, this explanation is consistent with that which the baraita teaches as to the response of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel: Its sealing is noticeable both from above and from below. But if you say that the dispute is with regard to a stopper made of lime plaster, granted, the location of the sealing is noticeable from below, as it is impossible to fill the entire hole with lime plaster, and an empty space remains below it; but the resealing is not noticeable from above.

רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הוּא דְּלָא יָדַע מַאי קָאָמְרִי רַבָּנַן, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר לְהוּ: אִי בְּשֶׁל טִיט קָאָמְרִיתוּ — סִתּוּמוֹ נִיכָּר בֵּין מִלְּמַעְלָה וּבֵין מִלְּמַטָּה, וְאִי בְּשֶׁל סִיד קָאָמְרִיתוּ — נְהִי דִּלְמַעְלָה לָא יְדִיעַ, לְמַטָּה מִיהָא יְדִיעַ. וְרַבָּנַן, כֵּיוָן דְּמִלְּמַעְלָה לָא יְדִיעַ, לָא מַסִּיק אַדַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּאָפֵיךְ וַחֲזֵי לֵיהּ. אִי נָמֵי, זִימְנִין דְּחָלֵים.

The Gemara answers: It was Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel who did not know what the Rabbis were saying, and this is what he is saying to them: If you are speaking of a stopper made of clay, its sealing is noticeable both from above and from below. And if you are speaking of a stopper made of lime plaster, granted, it is not noticeable from above, but it is noticeable, in any event, from below. And how would the Rabbis respond to this claim? They maintain that since it is not noticeable from above that there is a patch, it does not occur to the gentile that the owner will turn the stopper over and see the patch. Alternatively, the Rabbis could answer that sometimes it seals firmly and is not detectable.

אָמַר רָבָא: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, הוֹאִיל וּתְנַן סְתָמָא כְּוָותֵיהּ.

Rava says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, since we learned an unattributed mishna in accordance with his opinion.

דִּתְנַן: הָיָה אוֹכֵל עַל הַשּׁוּלְחָן עִמּוֹ, וְהִנִּיחַ לָגִין עַל הַשּׁוּלְחָן, לָגִין עַל הַדּוּלְבְּקִי וְהִנִּיחַ וְיָצָא — מָה שֶׁעַל הַשּׁוּלְחָן אָסוּר, מָה שֶׁעַל הַדּוּלְבְּקִי מוּתָּר, וְאִם אָמַר לוֹ: הֱוֵי מוֹזֵג וְשׁוֹתֶה — אַף שֶׁעַל הַדּוּלְבְּקִי אָסוּר. חָבִיּוֹת פְּתוּחוֹת אֲסוּרוֹת, סְתוּמוֹת מוּתָּרוֹת, כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּפְתַּח וְיִגּוֹף וְתִיגּוֹב.

This is as we learned in the last clause of the mishna: If a Jew was eating with a gentile at the table, and left jugs of wine on the table and a jug on the side table, and he left it and went out, what is on the table is forbidden, as it is likely that the gentile handled it, whereas what is on the side table is permitted. But if the Jew said to the gentile: Mix water with the wine and drink, even the jug that is on the side table is forbidden. Similarly, open barrels are forbidden, but sealed barrels are permitted unless the Jew was out of the room for sufficient time for the gentile to open the barrel by removing the stopper, stop it again by making a new stopper, and for the new stopper to dry.

פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: כּוּלָּהּ רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל קָתָנֵי לַהּ? קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

The Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious? This ruling is stated explicitly in the mishna. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel teaches the entire clause, and this is the continuation of his previous statement and not an unattributed statement of the mishna, Rava teaches us that this is not so.

וְכִי מֵאַחַר דְּקַיְימָא לַן כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל דְּלָא חָיֵישׁ לְשִׁתּוּמָא, וְהִלְכְתָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר דְּלָא חָיֵישׁ לְזִיּוּפָא, הָאִידָּנָא מַאי טַעְמָא לָא מוֹתְבִינַן חַמְרָא בְּיַד גּוֹיִם? מִשּׁוּם שַׁיְיכָּא.

The Gemara asks: And since we maintain that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who is not concerned about a bored hole in the barrel, and even though there is a concern that the gentile may have opened and replaced the stopper the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who is not concerned with forgery of the seal, because excessive effort is required to forge a seal (see 31a), therefore, nowadays, what is the reason we do not place wine in sealed barrels in the possession of gentiles? The Gemara answers: It is because of the bunghole, the hole in a barrel through which one smells the wine, which the gentile might widen a bit to drink from it.

אָמַר רָבָא: זוֹנָה גּוֹיָה, וְיִשְׂרָאֵל מְסוּבִּין אֶצְלָהּ — חַמְרָא שְׁרֵי, נְהִי דְּתָקֵיף לְהוּ יִצְרָא דַעֲבֵירָה,

§ Rava says: In the case of a gentile prostitute, where Jews are dining at her table, the wine at the table is permitted. Granted, their passion for the sin of harlotry overwhelms their judgment,