New Source Sheet

MISHNA: This mishna discusses the halakhic status of various items that belong to gentiles. These are items that belong to gentiles and are prohibited to Jews, and their prohibition is that of an item from which deriving benefit is prohibited: Wine, and vinegar belonging to gentiles that was originally wine...

GEMARA: From where do we derive that wine belonging to gentiles is prohibited? Rabba bar Avuh says that the verse states: “Who did eat the fat of their offerings, and drank the wine of their drink-offering” (Deuteronomy 32:38). This verse juxtaposes the fat of gentile sacrifices to their wine: Just as deriving benefit from their offering is prohibited, so too, deriving benefit from their wine is prohibited.

(2) Wine poured as a libation to a false deity is like a sacrifice offered to it. Since this prohibition stems from [the prohibition against] the worship of false deities, there is no minimum measure involved, as stated with regard to the worship of false deities [ibid. 13:18]: "Let no trace of the condemned [entity] cling to your hand."4

(1) When wine has been poured as a libation to a false divinity,1As explained in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 3:3, pouring a libation and sacrificing are among the four acts of service for which one is liable to any false deity, even if this is not its mode of service. it is forbidden to benefit from it. A person who drinks even the smallest quantity2See the following halachah. of [such wine] is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law. Similarly, anyone who partakes of the smallest quantity of something offered to a false deity, e.g., meat or fruit, even water or salt, is worthy of lashes, as [implied by Deuteronomy 32:38]: "The fat of whose offerings they would eat; they would drink the wine of their libations. Let them stand."

Mishna: These are the items that belong to gentiles and are prohibited to Jews, and their prohibition includes deriving benefit from them: Wine, vinegar belonging to gentiles that was originally wine...

Gemara: From where do we derive that wine belonging to gentile is prohibited? Rabbi bar Avuh says that the verse states: "Who did eat the fat of their offerings, and drank the wince of their drink-offerings" (Devarim 32:38). This verse juxtaposes the fat of gentile sacrifices to their wine: Just as deriving benefit from their offering is prohibited, so too, deriving benefit from their wine is prohibited.

The Gemara discusses the matter itself: Balei says that Avimi of Nota says in the name of Rav: The prohibitions with regard to gentiles’ bread and their oil, their wine and their daughters, are all from the eighteen matters issued in a single day in the time of the students of Shammai and Hillel... And Geneiva says in the name of Rav: Gentiles’ bread, oil, wine, and daughters were all decreed upon due to the concern that Jews might participate in idol worship with gentiles as a result of intermingling with them... They decreed a prohibition upon their bread due to their oil. The Gemara asks: In what way is the prohibition with regard to oil stronger than the prohibition with regard to bread? That is, why does the primary concern relate to the oil of gentiles rather than their bread? The Gemara offers a different interpretation: Rather, they issued a decree prohibiting their bread and their oil due to their wine. And they issued the decree prohibiting their wine due to the fact that this leads to familiarity, and Jews will come to marry their daughters. And they issued a decree prohibiting their daughters due to something else, idolatry.

And they were stringent to prohibit deriving benefit even from our wine if a gentile touched it.

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. § 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. § 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

MISHNA: This mishna discusses the halakhic status of various items that belong to gentiles. These are items that belong to gentiles and are prohibited to Jews, and their prohibition is that of an item from which deriving benefit is prohibited: Wine, and vinegar belonging to gentiles that was originally wine, and Hadrianic earthenware, and hides with a tear opposite the heart. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: A hide is prohibited only when the tear around its heart is circular, but if it is elongated it is permitted, as gentiles will sacrifice a heart only when it has been removed by a circular laceration. Meat that enters the house of idol worship is permitted, and meat that exits this house is prohibited, because it is considered as offerings to the dead, i.e., to idols; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. With regard to those going to a festival of idolatry [tarput], it is prohibited to engage in business with them. And with regard to those who are coming from it, it is permitted to engage in business with them. Wineskins and jugs belonging to gentiles, which have a Jew’s wine contained in them, are prohibited to Jews, and their prohibition is that of an item from which deriving benefit is prohibited; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Their prohibition is not that of an item from which deriving benefit is prohibited. Residual grape seeds and grape skins belonging to gentiles, which are left behind after the grapes are crushed for wine, are prohibited, and their prohibition is that of an item from which deriving benefit is prohibited; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Moist grape residues are prohibited, but dry residues are permitted. Fish stew [murayes] and cheese of Beit Unyaki belonging to gentiles are prohibited, and their prohibition is that of an item from which deriving benefit is prohibited. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Their prohibition is not that of an item from which deriving benefit is prohibited. Rabbi Yehuda said: Rabbi Yishmael asked Rabbi Yehoshua a series of questions while they were traveling along the road. Rabbi Yishmael said to him: For what reason did the Sages prohibit the cheeses of gentiles? Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: Because gentiles curdle cheese with the stomach contents of an unslaughtered animal carcass, and as the carcass of an unslaughtered animal is not kosher, cheese that is curdled with it is likewise prohibited. In response, Rabbi Yishmael said to him: But aren’t the stomach contents of a burnt-offering subject to a more stringent prohibition than the stomach contents of an unslaughtered animal carcass? And yet they said: A priest who is open-minded [shedato yafa] with regard to what he eats may swallow [shorefah] the stomach contents of a burnt-offering while they are raw, and the other Sages did not agree with him. But the Sages said: One may not derive benefit from the stomach contents of a burnt-offering ab initio, and if one did derive benefit from them, he is not liable for misusing consecrated property. According to both opinions, deriving benefit from the stomach contents of a burnt-offering is not prohibited by Torah law. Since the halakha with regard to a burnt-offering is more stringent than that of an animal carcass, why would deriving benefit from the carcass be prohibited, while deriving benefit from the burnt-offering is permitted? Rabbi Yehoshua said to Rabbi Yishmael: The cheese of gentiles is prohibited because they curdle it in the stomach contents of calves used for idol worship. Since it is prohibited to derive benefit from such calves, cheese curdled in their stomach contents is also prohibited. Rabbi Yishmael said to him: If that is so, why didn’t the Sages prohibit deriving any benefit from the cheese, instead of merely prohibiting its consumption? Instead of answering Rabbi Yishmael, Rabbi Yehoshua diverted his attention to another matter and said to him: Yishmael, how do you read the following verse in the Song of Songs (1:2)? Do you read it as: For Your love [dodekha] is better than wine, or as: For your love [dodayikh] is better than wine? The first version, which is in the masculine form, would be a reference to God, whereas the second version, in the feminine, would be a reference to the Jewish people. Rabbi Yishmael said to him that it should be read in the feminine: For your love [dodayikh] is better than wine. Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: The matter is not so, as another verse teaches with regard to it: “Your ointments [shemanekha] have a goodly fragrance... therefore do the maidens love you” (Song of Songs 1:3). This phrase, which appears in the next verse, must be describing a male, and therefore it can be deduced that the preceding verse is also in the masculine form. GEMARA: From where do we derive that wine belonging to gentiles is prohibited? Rabba bar Avuh says that the verse states: “Who did eat the fat of their offerings, and drank the wine of their drink-offering” (Deuteronomy 32:38). This verse juxtaposes the fat of gentile sacrifices to their wine: Just as deriving benefit from their offering is prohibited, so too, deriving benefit from their wine is prohibited. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive the prohibition with regard to an offering itself? It is derived from a verse, as it is written: “They joined themselves also unto Baal of Peor, and ate the offerings to the dead” (Psalms 106:28). This verse teaches that just as deriving benefit from a corpse is prohibited, so too, deriving benefit from an offering of idolatry is prohibited. The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive the prohibition of a corpse itself? The Gemara answers: It is derived from a verbal analogy between the words “there” and “there” employed with regard to the heifer whose neck is broken to absolve a city from bearing responsibility for the death of a visitor. It is written here: “And Miriam died there” (Numbers 20:1), and it is written there: “And the elders of that city shall bring down the heifer unto a rough valley, which may neither be plowed nor sown, and shall break the heifer’s neck there in the valley” (Deuteronomy 21:4). Just as there, deriving benefit from the heifer is prohibited, so too here, deriving benefit from a corpse is prohibited. And there, from where do we learn that deriving benefit from the heifer is prohibited? The Sages said in the school of Rabbi Yannai: A term of atonement is written with regard to the heifer whose neck is broken (Deuteronomy 21:8), just as it is written with regard to sacrificial animals. This teaches that deriving benefit from the heifer is prohibited, just as deriving benefit from sacrificial animals is prohibited. § The mishna teaches: And vinegar belonging to gentiles that was originally wine is prohibited. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious? Just because the wine has soured, should its prohibition lapse? Rav Ashi said: This comes to teach us that our vinegar that is in a gentile’s possession does not require a seal within a seal for it to remain permitted for consumption. Rather, one seal is sufficient. Rav Ashi explains the reason for this leniency: If the concern is due to idolatrous libation, gentiles do not offer libations of vinegar. And if it is due to the concern that a gentile may secretly exchange his prohibited vinegar with the vinegar 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. Rabbi Ile’a says: We learned that cooked wine belonging to gentiles that was originally uncooked wine is prohibited. The Gemara again asks: Isn’t this obvious? Just because the wine was cooked, should its prohibition lapse? Rav Ashi said: This comes to teach us that our cooked wine that is in a gentile’s possession does not require a seal within a seal for it to remain permitted for consumption. Rather, one seal is sufficient. Rav Ashi elaborates: If the concern is due to idolatrous libation, gentiles do not offer libations of cooked wine. And if it is due to