Avodah Zarah 30a (ל.) — the Talmud in English

And if

if

because

we are concerned that perhaps they will exchange it

and substitute it,

the gentile will replace it with his own cooked wine, there is no need for such concern.

Since

there is

a

single seal, he will not trouble himself to counterfeit it,

the gentile will not trouble himself to open the seal of the barrel, remove the cooked wine from it, put different cooked wine in its place, and counterfeit another seal in order to close and seal the barrel exactly as the Jew had done, since replacing cooked wine does not justify so much effort!

The Sages taught: Cooked wine and aluntit

a medicinal beverage

of gentiles

are prohibited,

since at the outset they were wine. However,

unmixed aluntit,

which the gentile acquired from a Jew when it had already been prepared as an aluntit beverage, and the aluntit had already been mixed with wine, and it had never been in the gentile’s possession as wine

is permitted.

And what is aluntit?

As it was taught

with regard to

Shabbat: One may prepare anomlin

a beverage,

but one may not prepare aluntit,

a medicinal preparation.

And what is anomlin, and what is aluntit?

Anomlin

is a beverage made from

wine, honey, and peppers,

and it is like other beverages that are permitted on Shabbat.

Aluntit

is a medicinal preparation made from

old wine and clear water

water that was drawn and left in a vessel for a day or two, until all the substances mixed into the drawn water, such as earth and the like, settle,

and balsam—

which they prepare

this preparation is made

for the bathhouse,

for those emerging from the bathhouse.

The Sages prohibited drinking a beverage that had been left uncovered, because there is concern that a snake may have drunk from it and injected its venom into it. Therefore, it is dangerous to drink that beverage.

The Gemara explains below which beverages were prohibited for this reason, and with which beverages there is no concern that a snake drank from them, and which therefore were not prohibited for this reason.

Rabba and Rav Yosef both say,

they said together:

Diluted wine

that was diluted and mixed with water [when two-thirds of it is water and one-third is wine ]—

does not have

the prohibition

of uncovered beverages.

If it is left uncovered, there is no prohibition against drinking it, since there is no concern that a snake drank from it.

Likewise,

cooked wine does not have

the prohibition

of libation,

since gentiles do not pour cooked wine as a libation.

They raised a dilemma:

They were uncertain:

Cooked wine,

when it remains uncovered, does

have

the prohibition

of uncovered beverages, or does it not have

the prohibition

of uncovered beverages?

The Gemara brings a proof—

Come and hear: Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi testified concerning cooked wine that

no snake drinks from it, and therefore it

has no

prohibition

of uncovered beverages.

Rabbi Yannai bar Yishmael fell ill,

he felt unwell.

They entered to him,

Rabbi Yishmael ben Zerud and the Sages entered his presence

to inquire after him,

to ask about his welfare.

They sat, and a question arose for them,

when they were sitting in his presence, they were uncertain about the following question:

Does

cooked wine have

the prohibition against leaving it uncovered

because of uncovered beverages, or does it not have the prohibition of uncovered beverages?

Rabbi Yishmael ben Zerud said to them,

to the Sages:

Thus

so

said Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish in the name of a great man,

in the name of a great person,

and who was he?

Who was that great person?

Rabbi Hiyya.

And this is what he said:

Wine

does not have the prohibition of uncovered beverages!

They said to him,

the Sages asked him: Should we

rely

on this and permit drinking cooked wine that remained uncovered?

He gestured to them,

he showed them

Rabbi Yannai bar Yishmael

with a hand gesture:

“Upon me and upon my neck,”

it is possible to rely on this!

The Gemara relates another matter concerning cooked wine [with regard to libation]:

Shmuel and

a gentile named

Ablat were sitting.

They were sitting together.

They brought before them

they brought before them

cooked wine,

cooked wine. And

he withdrew his hand,

the gentile Ablat withdrew his hand from the wine and did not touch it, so as not to prohibit it for Shmuel.

Shmuel said to him

to Ablat: You need not refrain from touching the wine, for

they said: Cooked wine does not have the status of wine used for idolatrous libation.

Therefore, you do not prohibit it through your touch. We learn from this that cooked wine touched by a gentile is permitted even for drinking!

The Gemara relates another incident:

The maidservant

his maidservant

of Rabbi Hiyya had cooked wine left uncovered.

It happened that cooked wine was left uncovered in her possession, and she was uncertain whether it was permitted to drink.

She came before

she came before

Rabbi Hiyya

and asked him what to do with this uncovered wine.

He said to her,

Rabbi Hiyya said:

Have they not said

the Sages:

Cooked wine does not have the prohibition of uncovered beverages.

The attendant

the attendant

of Rav Adda bar Ahava had diluted wine left uncovered,

diluted wine [mixed with water] was left uncovered in his possession.

He said to him,

Rav Adda bar Ahava said to him: The wine is permitted to drink, for

they said: Diluted wine does not have the prohibition of uncovered beverages!

Rav Pappa said:

This ruling, that diluted wine does not have the prohibition of uncovered beverages,

we stated

we stated it

only

when

it is thoroughly diluted,

when a great deal of water is mixed into it.

However,

if the wine is

partially but not fully diluted,

mixed with only a small amount of water,

it drinks,

the snake drinks from it. Therefore, it is prohibited to drink if it remained uncovered.

The Gemara asks:

“And partially but not fully diluted wine—is it drunk?”

Does a snake really drink from it?

But Rabba bar Rav Huna was traveling in a boat,

he was traveling in a boat,

and he was holding wine with him,

and he had wine with him,

and he saw a certain snake

a snake

crawling toward them

from the water.

He said to

Rabba bar Rav Huna

his attendant,

to his attendant:

“Blind the eyes of this one”

[blind the snake’s eyes]. That is, show the snake something that repels it, and it will consequently depart.

He took a little water,

he took a small amount of water,

threw it into it,

he threw it into the wine,

and it retreated

the snake

backward,

and moved away from them.

If so, this proves that a snake does not drink wine even when it is diluted with a small amount of water?

The Gemara rejects this proof:

“Ahaya,”

with regard to undiluted wine,

it risks its life,

the snake risks its life and comes to drink from it in full view of everyone, despite the danger that it may be killed.

With regard to diluted wine,

with regard to diluted wine,

it does not risk its life;

it does not risk its life.

Therefore, when Rabba bar Rav Huna was holding undiluted wine, the snake approached him even though they could have killed it. But when the attendant diluted it with a small amount of water, it retreated.

Indeed, when no one is watching, a snake drinks even diluted wine. Therefore, diluted wine that was left uncovered is prohibited.

But the Gemara asks:

And

does

with regard to diluted wine,

with regard to diluted wine,

it not risk its life

does the snake not risk its life?

But

yet

Rabbi Yannai was

was in a place called

“Bei Akhvurei,” and some say

and some say that

bar Hedya was

he was the one who was

in “Bei Akhvurei.”

They were sitting

they were sitting there,

and they were drinking diluted wine.

They were drinking diluted wine.

Some wine remained in a jug,

some wine remained in a vessel,

and they sealed it with a cloth,

they closed the vessel by tying a piece of cloth over its mouth.

And they saw a certain snake

they saw a snake

take water and pour it into the jug,

it took water and filled the vessel containing the wine,

until the jug was full and the wine rose,

until the vessel was filled and the wine rose over its rim,

above the cloth,

the wine rose above the cloth sealing the top of the vessel,

and it drank,

the snake drank from it!

This proves that a snake risks its life even for wine diluted with water, since it did this in full view of everyone sitting there!

They said

they said in answer:

It is diluted by it,

it is wine diluted by the snake itself, as in the incident before us,

it drinks,

the snake drinks from it and even risks its life for it.

But wine

diluted by others,

that was diluted by other people,

it does not drink,

it does not drink from it.

Rav Ashi said, and some say

and some say that

Rav Mesharsheya said: “An answer for a danger?!”

Does the Gemara offer answers of this sort in order to refute the proofs that a snake does indeed drink diluted wine, and on that basis do we seek to permit wine that is dangerous to drink?!

Rather, certainly every wine that was left uncovered is prohibited to drink, since there is concern that a snake drank from it, and it is dangerous.

Rava said: The halakha is—

diluted wine has the prohibition of uncovered beverages.

And it has the status of wine used for idolatrous libation.

Cooked wine—

does not have the prohibition of uncovered beverages, and it does not have the status of wine used for idolatrous libation.

The attendant

the attendant

of Rav Helkiah bar Tovi had a certain measure of water become uncovered,

he had water placed in a measuring vessel called a kista, and the kista became uncovered,

and he was sleeping beside it.

He was sleeping beside it.

He came to him

he came to ask about the status of the water before

Rav Helkiah bar Tovi. He said to him: Have they not said

that there is no concern that a snake drank from water beside which a person was sleeping, since

the fear of

the sleeping person is upon

them?

Because it fears the person, it does not risk its life for this water.

And this applies

this matter, that they fear a person sleeping beside the water, applies only

during the day.

During the day.

But at night,

at night

no.

Then they are not afraid of him.

The Gemara rejects this:

“That is not so;

the matter is not as stated. Rather,

there is no difference whether by day or whether by night;

there is no distinction, and both by day and by night,

we do not say, ‘The fear of the sleeping person is upon them.’”

We do not say that the sleeping person is feared by them. Rather, they are liable to drink from this water, and therefore it must be prohibited.

Rav did not drink

he would not drink

from the house of a gentile.

In the homes of gentiles. And the reason was that

Rav said:

Rav said:

They are not careful

the gentiles are not careful

about

this matter of

uncovered beverages.

Therefore, there is concern that the beverages in their homes have been contaminated with snake venom.

And

from the house of a widow,

in the home of a Jewish widow,

he did drink,

he would drink, even though a woman is not well versed in the halakhot and would not independently know that water must be covered. If so, how could he drink?—

He said

as the reason for the matter:

“The trace of the man,”

her husband’s practices,

she retains

she adopts and observes them. Therefore, one may say that she indeed takes care not to leave beverages uncovered.

Shmuel did not drink water

he would not drink water

from the house of a widow,

in a widow’s home.

He said

Shmuel stated the reason:

“She has no fear of a man,”

since she is a widow, she does not fear a man,

and she does not cover the water.

She does not cover the water.

But from the house of a gentile

in the home of gentiles,

he did drink.

Shmuel would drink there. And the reason was:

“Although they are not particular about uncovered beverages,

although they are not particular about the prohibition of leaving beverages uncovered, out of concern that a snake may come,

with regard to cleanliness,

with regard to the cleanliness of the beverage,

they are at least particular,

they are particular. Therefore, they ensure that it is covered, so that refuse will not fall into it.

There are those who say

there are those who present the matter as follows:

Rav—

did not drink water from the house of a gentile

in the gentile’s home.

But from the house of a widow

in the home of a widow,

he did drink,

he would drink.

Shmuel -

He would not drink water:

he would not drink water,

not in the house of an Aramean:

not in a gentile's house,

and not in the house of a widow:

in a widow's house.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: There are three

kinds of

wine, and they do not have the prohibition of

the prohibition of

exposure,

as a snake does not drink from them.

And these are they: sharp, bitter, and sweet.

The Gemara explains what these wines are:

a.

Sharp:

it is

very sharp wine that bursts wineskins.

It is a type of very strong and sharp wine, and because of its strength it bursts the wineskin in which it is contained. Since it is sharp and does not have a good, sweet taste, but rather tastes like vinegar, a snake does not drink from it.

b.

Bitter:

it is

yarenka.

Its taste is bad and bitter.

c.

Sweet:

it is

hulya.

It becomes very sweet because the grapes remained in the sun for a long time and ripened greatly. The taste of the wine, however, is not considered fine.

According to this explanation of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi's words, these are inferior wines. Because of their poor and deficient quality, a snake does not taste them.

However,

Rav Hama interprets

the names of the wines mentioned by Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi

in a favorable sense,

as referring to superior and fine wines.

And this is their interpretation:

a.

Sharp -

it is sharp wine because it contains a mixture of

wine [

wine]

and peppers

and spices that sharpen it.

b.

Bitter -

it is wine with a bitter taste because of

absinth [

wormwood] that is placed in it.

c.

Sweet -

it is

water of barg,

and it is a superior beverage. ["Barg" in the Persian language means superior.]

All of these, then, are superior wines, and a snake does not drink from them.

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said:

Wine

called “karina” does not have the prohibition of

the prohibition of

exposure.

The Gemara asks:

What

is this wine called

“K-ri-na”?

Rabbi Abbahu said:

Sweet wine

sweet wine,

that comes from Asia,

which comes from a place called Asia.

Rava said: And in its place,

in the place where people customarily drink it,

it does have

the prohibition of

exposure. What is the reason? -

Since in that place

it is the local beverage.

The snakes in that place are accustomed to its taste. Therefore, it is prohibited when exposed.

Rava said: This wine

wine

that has begun to sour,

which has soured [but has not yet actually become vinegar],

for up to three days,

three days from the day it began to spoil,

does have

the prohibition of

exposure.

And

it also has the prohibition

of yayin nesekh.