AVODAH ZARAH 30:
אִיחַלּוֹפֵי — כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא חוֹתָם אֶחָד, לָא טָרַח וּמְזַיֵּיף. 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. 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. 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. שְׁמוּאֵל וְאַבְלֵט הֲווֹ יָתְבִי, אַיְיתוֹ לְקַמַּיְיהוּ חַמְרָא מְבַשְּׁלָא, מַשְׁכֵיהּ לִידֵיהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲרֵי אָמְרוּ יַיִן מְבוּשָּׁל אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם יֵין נֶסֶךְ. 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. 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! אַחַיָּיא מָסַר נַפְשֵׁיהּ, אַמְּזִיגָא לָא מְסַר נַפְשֵׁיהּ. 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! אָמְרִי: דְּמָזֵיג אִיהוּ שָׁתֵי, דְּמָזְגִי אַחֲרִינֵי לָא שָׁתֵי. 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. 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. רַב לָא שָׁתֵי [מַיָּא] מִבֵּי אֲרַמָּאָה, אָמַר: לָא זְהִירִי בְּגִילּוּי, מִבֵּי אַרְמַלְתָּא שָׁתֵי, אָמַר: סִירְכָא דְּגַבְרָא נְקִיטָא. 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. 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. 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, 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. 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. 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. 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׳״. 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. 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. 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. 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. אֲחֵרִים הַיְינוּ תַּנָּא קַמָּא! אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ גַּב הַיָּד וְגַב הָרֶגֶל וְרוּמָּנֵי דְּאַפֵּי. 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. אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתֵירָא: שְׁלֹשָׁה יֵינוֹת הֵן — יֵין נֶסֶךְ אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה, וּמְטַמֵּא טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה בִּכְזַיִת.
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 baraitawith 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 toRabbi 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 Ahavasaid 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.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. § 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. 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 kutaḥhas 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. 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. 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.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.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.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.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. 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 thatbaraitais 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. 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.
31
סְתָם יֵינָם — אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה, וּמְטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת מַשְׁקִין בִּרְבִיעִית. הַמַּפְקִיד יֵינוֹ אֵצֶל גּוֹי — אָסוּר בִּשְׁתִיָּה, וּמוּתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה. וְהָתְנַן: הַמַּפְקִיד פֵּירוֹתָיו אֵצֶל גּוֹי, הֲרֵי הֵן כְּפֵירוֹתָיו שֶׁל גּוֹי לִשְׁבִיעִית וּלְמַעֲשֵׂר! כְּגוֹן שֶׁיִּיחֵד לוֹ קֶרֶן זָוִית. 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. קָרֵי עֲלֵיהּ ״מְקוֹם שֶׁיִּפּוֹל הָעֵץ שָׁם יְהוּ״, ״שָׁם יְהוּ״ סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ? אֶלָּא שָׁם יְהוּ פֵּירוֹתָיו. אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: לָא קַשְׁיָא — הָא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, הָא רַבָּנַן. דְּתַנְיָא: אֶחָד הַלּוֹקֵחַ וְאֶחָד הַשּׂוֹכֵר בַּיִת בַּחֲצֵירוֹ שֶׁל גּוֹי, וּמִלְּאוּהוּ יַיִן, וּמַפְתֵּחַ אוֹ חוֹתָם בְּיַד יִשְׂרָאֵל — רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מַתִּיר, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹסְרִין. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. וּסְתוּמוֹת מוּתָּרוֹת? וּרְמִינְהִי: הַשּׁוֹלֵחַ חָבִית שֶׁל יַיִן בְּיַד כּוּתִי, וְשֶׁל צִיר וְשֶׁל מוּרְיָיס בְּיַד גּוֹי, אִם מַכִּיר חוֹתָמוֹ וּסְתָמוֹ — מוּתָּר, אִם לָאו — אָסוּר! אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: לָא קַשְׁיָא — כָּאן בָּעִיר, כָּאן בַּדֶּרֶךְ. 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. אִתְּמַר: מִפְּנֵי מָה אָסְרוּ שֵׁכָר שֶׁל גּוֹיִם? רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: מִשּׁוּם חַתְנוּת, רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: מִשּׁוּם גִּילּוּי. אַגִּילּוּי דְּמַאי? אִילֵּימָא גִּילּוּי דְּנַזְיָיתָא — אֲנַן נָמֵי מְגַלֵּינַן! וְאֶלָּא דְּחָבִיתָא — אֲנַן נָמֵי מְגַלֵּינַן! לָא צְרִיכָא, בְּאַתְרָא דִּמְצַלּוּ מַיָּא. אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה יָשָׁן תִּשְׁתְּרֵי! דְּאָמַר רַבִּי: יָשָׁן מוּתָּר — אֵין מַנִּיחוֹ לְיַישֵּׁן, הֶחְמִיץ מוּתָּר — אֵין מַנִּיחוֹ לְהַחְמִיץ. גְּזֵירָה יָשָׁן אַטּוּ חָדָשׁ. רַב פָּפָּא מַפְּיקִין לֵיהּ (לאבבא) [אַבָּבָא] דְּחָנוּתָא, וְשָׁתֵי. רַב אַחַאי מַיְיתוּ לֵיהּ לְבֵיתֵיהּ, וְשָׁתֵי. וְתַרְוַיְיהוּ מִשּׁוּם חַתְנוּת, רַב אַחַאי עָבֵיד הַרְחָקָה יַתִּירְתָּא. 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. אָמַר רַב: הַאי שִׁיכְרָא דַּאֲרַמָּאָה שְׁרֵי, וְחִיָּיא בְּרִי לָא נִישְׁתֵּי מִינֵּיהּ. מָה נַפְשָׁךְ? אִי שְׁרֵי — לְכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא שְׁרֵי, אִי אֲסִיר — לְכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אֲסִיר! אֶלָּא, רַב סָבַר מִשּׁוּם גִּילּוּיָא, וְאָזֵיל מְרוֹרָא דִּכְשׁוּתָא וְקָלֵי לֵיהּ זִיהֲרֵיהּ, וְדִלְקֵי מַלְקֵי לֵיהּ טְפֵי, וְחִיָּיא בְּרִי הוֹאִיל וּלְקֵי לָא נִישְׁתֵּי מִינֵּיהּ. 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. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף:
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. 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. 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 tannabar 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.Upon hearing this, Rabbi Yoḥananread 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. 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. Thisbaraita, 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.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. 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.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.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.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.§ 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.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. The Gemara asks: But are sealed barrels permitted? And the Gemara raises a contradiction against this notion 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. 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. 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. 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.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.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. § 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. 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. 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? 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, andRav was saying: In the case of my son Ḥiyya, since he is weak, he does not drink from it.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. Rav Yosef says:
32
הַאי חַלָּא דְּשִׁיכְרָא דַּאֲרַמָּאָה אָסוּר, דִּמְעָרְבִי בֵּיהּ דּוּרְדְּיָא דְּיֵין נֶסֶךְ. אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: וּמֵאוֹצָר שְׁרֵי, כֵּיוָן דִּמְעָרְבִי בֵּיהּ מִסְרָא סְרֵי. וָחֶרֶס הַדְרְיָינִי. מַאי הַדְרְיָינִי? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: חֶרֶס שֶׁל הַדְרְיָינוּס קֵיסָר. כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר: קַרְקַע בְּתוּלָה הָיְתָה שֶׁלֹּא עֲבָדָהּ אָדָם מֵעוֹלָם, עֲבָדָהּ וּנְטָעָהּ, וְרָמֵי לֵיהּ לְחַמְרָא בְּגוּלְפֵי חִיוָּרֵי, וּמָיְיצִי לְהוּ לְחַמְרַיְיהוּ, וּמְתַבְּרוּ לְהוּ בְּחַסְפֵי וְדָרוּ בַּהֲדַיְיהוּ, וְכֹל הֵיכָא דְּמָטוּ תָּרוּ לְהוּ וְשָׁתוּ. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: וְרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁלָּנוּ כִּשְׁלִישִׁי שֶׁלָּהֶן. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: מַהוּ לִסְמוֹךְ בָּהֶן כַּרְעֵי הַמִּטָּה? רוֹצֶה בְּקִיּוּמוֹ עַל יְדֵי דָּבָר אַחֵר — שְׁרֵי אוֹ אָסוּר? תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: חַד אָסַר וְחַד שָׁרֵי, וְהִלְכְתָא כְּמַאן דְּאָסַר. מֵיתִיבִי: הַדַּרְדּוּרִין וְהָרוּקְבָּאוֹת שֶׁל גּוֹיִם, יַיִן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל כָּנוּס בָּהֶן — אָסוּר בִּשְׁתִיָּה וּמוּתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה. הֵעִיד שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גּוּדָּא לִפְנֵי בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל עַל רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, שֶׁשָּׁתָה מִמֶּנּוּ בְּעַכּוֹ, וְלֹא הוֹדוּ לוֹ. נוֹדוֹת שֶׁל גּוֹיִם — רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קַפּוֹסַאי: אָסוּר לַעֲשׂוֹת מֵהֶן שְׁטִיחִין לַחֲמוֹר, וְהָא הָכָא דְּרוֹצֶה בְּקִיּוּמוֹ עַל יְדֵי דָּבָר אַחֵר, וְקָתָנֵי דְּאָסוּר! וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, קַנְקַנִּים שֶׁל גּוֹיִם לִיתַּסְרוּ לְמִיזְבַּן! מַאי שְׁנָא נוֹדוֹת וּמַאי שְׁנָא קַנְקַנִּים? אָמַר רָבָא: גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יִבָּקַע נוֹדוֹ וְיִטְּלֶנּוּ וְיִתְפְּרֶנּוּ עַל גַּבֵּי נוֹדוֹ. וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר רוֹצֶה בְּקִיּוּמוֹ עַל יְדֵי דָּבָר אַחֵר אָסוּר, מַאי שְׁנָא קַנְקַנִּים דִּשְׁרוּ? אָמַר לָךְ: הָתָם לֵיתֵיהּ לְאִיסּוּרֵיהּ בְּעֵינֵיהּ, הָכָא אִיתֵיהּ לְאִיסּוּרֵיהּ בְּעֵינֵיהּ. וְלֹא הוֹדוּ לוֹ. וּרְמִינְהִי: יַיִן הַבָּא בְּרוּקְבָּאוֹת שֶׁל גּוֹיִם אָסוּר בִּשְׁתִיָּה וּמוּתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה, הֵעִיד שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גּוּדָּע לִפְנֵי בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל עַל רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל שֶׁשָּׁתָה מִמֶּנּוּ בְּעַכּוֹ, וְהוֹדוּ לוֹ! מַאי ״לֹא הוֹדוּ לוֹ״ דְּקָאָמַר הָתָם? כׇּל סִיעָתוֹ, אֲבָל בְּנוֹ מוֹדֵי לֵיהּ. אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: גּוּדָּא לְחוֹד, וְגוּדָּע לְחוֹד. וְעוֹרוֹת לְבוּבִין. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵיזֶהוּ עוֹר לָבוּב? כָּל שֶׁקָּרוּעַ כְּנֶגֶד הַלֵּב וְקָדוּר כְּמִין אֲרוּבָּה, יֵשׁ עָלָיו קוֹרֶט דָּם — אָסוּר, אֵין עָלָיו קוֹרֶט דָּם — מוּתָּר. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא מְלָחוֹ, אֲבָל מְלָחוֹ — אָסוּר. אֵימָא: מִלְחוֹ הֶעֱבִרַתּוּ. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַקֶּרַע שֶׁלּוֹ עָגוֹל — אָסוּר, מָשׁוּךְ — מוּתָּר. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף, אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: הֲלָכָה — מִכְּלָל דִּפְלִיגִי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי נָפְקָא לָךְ מִינַּהּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: גְּמָרָא גְּמוֹר, זְמוֹרְתָּא תְּהֵא? בָּשָׂר הַנִּכְנָס לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה מוּתָּר. מַאן תַּנָּא? אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, דְּאִי כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, הָאָמַר: סְתָם מַחְשֶׁבֶת גּוֹי לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. וְהַיּוֹצֵא אָסוּר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כְּזִבְחֵי מֵתִים. מַאי טַעְמָא? אִי אֶפְשָׁר דְּלֵיכָּא תִּקְרוֹבֶת עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. מַנִּי? רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתֵירָא הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתִירָא אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִן לְתִקְרוֹבֶת עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁמְּטַמֵּא בְּאֹהֶל? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיִּצָּמְדוּ לְבַעַל פְּעוֹר וַיֹּאכְלוּ זִבְחֵי מֵתִים״, מָה מֵת מְטַמֵּא בְּאֹהֶל, אַף תִּקְרוֹבֶת עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה מְטַמְּאָה בְּאֹהֶל. הַהוֹלְכִין לַתַּרְפּוּת — אֲסוּרִין לָשֵׂאת וְלָתֵת עִמָּהֶם. אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: גּוֹי הַהוֹלֵךְ לַתַּרְפּוּת, בַּהֲלִיכָה — אָסוּר, דְּאָזֵיל וּמוֹדֵי קַמֵּי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, בַּחֲזָרָה — מוּתָּר, מַאי דַהֲוָה הֲוָה. יִשְׂרָאֵל הַהוֹלֵךְ לַתַּרְפּוּת — בַּהֲלִיכָה מוּתָּר, דִּלְמָא הָדַר בֵּיהּ וְלָא אָזֵיל; בַּחֲזָרָה אָסוּר, כֵּיוָן
This vinegar made of Aramean beer is prohibited, as they mix in it yeast of wine used for a libation. Rav Ashi said: But vinegar from a storeroom is permitted, since if another substance is mixed with it, it would spoil over time. § The mishna teaches: And Hadrianic earthenware is prohibited. The Gemara asks: What is Hadrianic earthenware? Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: It is earthenware of Emperor Hadrian. When Rav Dimi came, he said: There was an expanse of virgin soil that no man had ever tilled before, and Hadriantilled it and planted grapevines in it, which yielded wine of the highest quality. And they placed this wine in white jugs, and the jugs absorbed the wine. And they would break the jugs into shards and carry the shards with them, and anywhere that they stopped, they soaked these shards in water and drank the water. The Gemara notes that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: And our first-rate wine is like the wine produced by the third usage of their Hadrianic earthenware. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha if one wishes to use such shards to support the legs of a bed with them? Is one who desires a prohibited item’s continued existence in order to use it for another matter, i.e., not for the prohibited purpose, permitted to use it or prohibited from doing so? In this case, no benefit whatsoever is derived from the wine absorbed within the shards, but the shards themselves are being used to support the bed. The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma, as Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yoḥanan engaged in a dispute in this case: One prohibited using the shards in such a fashion, and one permitted this practice. The Gemara adds: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Sage who prohibited it. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita to the Sage who deems it permitted: With regard to the jugs [dardurin] and flagons [rokva’ot] of gentiles that have a Jew’s wine contained in them, one is prohibited from drinking the wine, but one is permitted to derive benefit from it. The Gemara notes that Shimon ben Guda testified before the son of Rabban Gamliel with regard to Rabban Gamliel that he drank from it in Akko, but the Sages did not concede to the ramifications of his testimony. Concerning wineskins that belong to gentiles, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kefusai: It is prohibited to fashion from them items such as blankets to cover a donkey, as one derives benefit from them. The Gemara explains the objection: And here, in the case of wineskins used as donkey covers, he desires its continued existence for another matter, and yet the baraitateaches that it is prohibited to use it for this purpose. The Gemara retorts: And according to your reasoning, it should be prohibited to sell jugs belonging to gentiles, and yet Jews sell them frequently; what is different about wineskins, from which one may not derive indirect benefit, and what is different about jugs, which may be sold for indirect benefit? The Gemara answers that Rava says: There is a rabbinic decree that one may not sell wineskins of gentiles lest his own wineskin break open, and to repair it he would take the gentile’s wineskin and sew it onto his wineskin. This would cause the wine absorbed in the gentile’s wineskin to mix with the wine of the Jew and render it forbidden. The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says that someone who desires the continued existence of a prohibited item for another matter is prohibited from using the item in this way, what is different about jugs that purchasing them is permitted? The Gemara explains that this Sage could have said to you: There, with regard to the jugs, there is no substantive prohibited entity, whereas here, in the case of Hadrianic earthenware, there is a substantive prohibited entity, as the wine is recognizable in the earthenware. § It was stated that Shimon ben Guda provided testimony, but the Sages did not concede to its ramifications. And the Gemara raises a contradiction: With regard to wine that comes in the flagons of gentiles, one is prohibited from drinking the wine, but one is permitted to derive benefit from it. Shimon ben Guda testified before the son of Rabban Gamliel with regard to Rabban Gamliel that he drank from it in Akko, and they conceded to him. This directly contradicts the episode cited above. The Gemara explains: What is the meaning of the sentence: But they did not concede to the ramifications of his testimony, which was stated there, in the first account? The meaning is that the rest of his entire company, i.e., the Sages, did not concede, but his son did concede to him. If you wish, say instead that Guda with the letter alef, as stated in the first episode, is discrete, and Guda with an ayin, in the second account, is discrete, i.e., the two incidents are not referring to the same individual. § The mishna further teaches: And hides with a tear opposite the heart are prohibited. The Sages taught: What is considered a hide with a tear opposite the heart? Any hide that is torn opposite the heart and incised in a shape similar to an aperture, and which has a trace of coagulated blood on it, is prohibited.If it does not have a trace of blood upon it, then it is permitted. Rav Huna says: They taught that a bloodless hide is permitted only in a case where the gentile did not salt it, but if he salted it, it is prohibited, as I say: Its salting removed the trace of blood. § The mishna teaches that 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. The Gemara notes: Rav Yosef says that Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.Abaye said toRav Yosef: If one rules that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, does that mean by inference that the Rabbis disagree, or perhaps there is no dispute and everyone accepts the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel? Rav Yosefsaid to him: What difference is there to you whether or not the Rabbis disagree? In either case the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. Abayesaid to him, invoking a folk expression with regard to one who learns without achieving understanding: Is it simply learn the lesson; let it be like a song? In other words, is it sufficient to simply parrot the halakhic ruling? No; it is necessary to examine an issue to understand it even if it does not yield a practical halakhic difference. § The mishna further teaches: Meat that enters the house of idol worship, before it is sacrificed, is permitted. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught this? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, as if one were to posit that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, this would be difficult: Doesn’t he say: When slaughtering an animal, a gentile’s unspecified intention is to use it for idol worship? Accordingly, Rabbi Elazar would disagree with the ruling of the mishna that meat entering a house of idol worship is permitted. The mishna teaches: And meat that exits the house of idol worship is prohibited because it is considered as offerings to the dead, i.e., idols. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that it is classified as such? It is because it is impossible that it is not an idolatrous offering. The Gemara asks: Whose opinion does this reflect? It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira.As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: From where is it derived that an idolatrous offering imparts ritual impurity by means of a tent to an individual or item situated together with it under the same structure, even if they do not come into direct contact? As it is stated: “They joined themselves also unto Baal of Peor, and ate the offerings to the dead” (Psalms 106:28). Just as a corpse imparts ritual impurity by means of a tent, so too idolatrous offerings impart ritual impurity by means of a tent. Similarly, Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira would hold that just as it is prohibited to derive benefit from a corpse, so too it is prohibited to derive benefit from idolatrous offerings. § The mishna teaches: With regard to those going to a festival of idolatry, it is prohibited to engage with them in business. The Gemara notes that Shmuel says: In the case of a gentile who goes to a festival of idolatry, if he is on his way to the festival it is prohibited to engage in business with him, as he subsequently goes and offers thanks before the object of idol worship. Upon his return it is permitted, as what was, was, i.e., he has already finished his worship, and refraining from engaging in business with the gentile at this stage will accomplish nothing. Conversely, with regard to a Jew who goes to a festival of idolatry, if he is on his way to the festival it is permitted to engage in business with him, as perhaps he will retract from his plan and will not go. Upon his return, it is prohibited, since