Avodah Zarah 31a (לא.) — the Talmud in English

b.

The status of ordinary wine,

ordinary wine that came from a gentile,

is prohibited for benefit

due to the rabbinic decree concerning wine used for libation.

And

if a creeping creature touched it, it

imparts ritual impurity to liquids with

the measure of

a revi'it.

Like liquids that became impure.

c.

One who deposits his wine with a gentile,

this wine

is prohibited to drink but permitted for benefit.

The Gemara raises a question from the Mishna in tractate Demai [3:4]:

And didn't we learn: One who deposits his produce with a gentile, it is considered like the produce of the gentile with regard to

the matter of

the Sabbatical year and with regard to

the matter of

tithes?

For there is suspicion that the gentile exchanged the produce deposited with him for his own produce.

And this is difficult: If there is suspicion that he exchanged it, there should likewise be suspicion that he exchanged the wine for his own wine, and the wine should be prohibited for benefit, like gentile wine. The Gemara answers: This is referring to

a case where he designated for him

the gentile

a corner,

a place in which to put his wine. The gentile gave him the keys to that place, or made a seal there for him, and no one entered. Therefore, the wine need not be prohibited for benefit.

The Gemara asks:

If so,

if indeed this refers to a case where he designated a corner or a mark for him, and it is impossible that the gentile exchanged his wine, then

with regard to drinking it too, it should be permitted,

it should likewise be permitted?

For

since

Rabbi Yoḥanan happened to arrive

he came by chance

at

a place called

Parod,

the city of Bar Kappara [and this occurred after Bar Kappara had died],

he said,

Rabbi Yoḥanan:

“Is there anyone who knows the teachings of Bar Kappara,

is there anyone here who studies and can recite Bar Kappara's teachings?”

Rabbi Tanḥum of Parod taught him

he recited to him

Rabbi Tanḥum of Parod

in the name of Bar Kappara, his teacher:

“One who deposits his wine with a gentile is permitted to drink it.”

He applied to him,

Rabbi Yoḥanan applied to him the verse [Ecclesiastes 11:3]:

“Where the tree falls, there shall it be.”

That is, in the place where the “tree,” the Torah scholar—namely, Bar Kappara—dwelt, there shall it be.

Apparently, one may wonder: Could it enter one's mind that the verse means

“there shall it be”?

How could one say that it shall be there, when he had already died?

Rather,

the explanation is: In the place where it fell,

there shall its fruit be

that fell from it. And these are the words of its Torah, which are taught there even after its death!

And the same applies here. One who needs the words of the Sages taught in this place should ask the townspeople, because they heard them from the Sages and now teach them to others. Those who teach them to others are like the scholar's fruit.

This is difficult: Why was it ruled in the beraita that the wine is prohibited to drink?

The Gemara answers:

Rabbi Zeira said—

It is not difficult.

This

the beraita in which Rabbi Yoḥanan stated the ruling in the name of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira follows the view of

Rabbi Eliezer.

And

this,

the Mishna, which states that one who deposits his produce with a gentile has it considered like the gentile's produce, follows the view of

the Rabbis.

And what are the statements of Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis?

As it was taught in a beraita:

Whether one who purchases

buys,

or

likewise

whether one who rents a house in the courtyard of a gentile,

and fills it

the purchaser or renter fills it with

wine,

and

the

key

or

the

seal

of that place is

in the possession of a Jew,

and there is no concern that a gentile will enter there.

Rabbi Eliezer permits

the wine even for drinking.

And the Sages prohibit

it.

However, if in any event he left wine there, it is permitted for benefit but prohibited to drink.

If so, the beraita that permits wine deposited with a gentile follows Rabbi Eliezer , whereas the Mishna, which is concerned that the gentile exchanged produce in his possession, follows the Rabbis.

Rabbi Ḥiyya, the son

of

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Naḥmani, said that Rav Ḥisda said that Rav said.

And some say

that the matter was transmitted as follows:

Rav Ḥisda said that Ze'eiri said.

And some say

that the matter was transmitted as follows:

Rav Ḥisda said that Abba bar Ḥama told me: Thus

so

said Ze'eiri:

The halakha follows Rabbi Eliezer!

Rabbi Elazar said: Everything

every item entrusted to a gentile for safekeeping

is safeguarded

even if it is closed only with

one seal

a closure

alone.

There is no concern that the gentile opened the seal and exchanged the item.

Except for wine, which

wine

is not safeguarded with one seal,

but requires two seals for its safekeeping, so that we can be certain that the gentile did not exchange the wine for his own wine.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even wine is safeguarded with one seal.

And they do not disagree,

they do not disagree with one another.

Rather,

this

Rabbi Yoḥanan stated his position

according to

the view of

Rabbi Eliezer [

cited above, who permits wine that was sealed in a house in a gentile's courtyard].

And

this,

Rabbi Elazar stated his position

according to

the view of

the Rabbis.

There are those who say

that this is what

Rabbi Elazar said: Everything

every item placed in a gentile's possession

is safeguarded with a seal within a seal,

and there is no concern that the gentile broke through both seals and exchanged the item.

Except for wine, which is not safeguarded even with a seal within a seal!

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even wine is safeguarded with a seal within a seal.

And both of them

Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yoḥanan hold

according to

the view of

the Rabbis,

who do not consider one seal sufficient [as Rabbi Eliezer holds].

And in what do they disagree?

One master,

Rabbi Yoḥanan,

holds that when they disagree,

when

the Rabbis disagreed with Rabbi Eliezer,

they disagreed with his statement that if the wine is sealed

with one seal,

it is permitted even for drinking. They hold that with one seal it is prohibited.

But

if the wine is closed

with a seal within a seal—

they permitted it.

The Sages permitted it.

And one master,

Rabbi Elazar,

holds

that they disagree with Rabbi Eliezer in every case,

even

when the wine is closed with

a seal within a seal—

they prohibit it.

They prohibit it.

The Gemara clarifies:

What are the circumstances?

How is the matter considered

a seal within a seal?

Rava said: If a vessel is placed over the mouth of the barrel,

if one inverted a vessel over the mouth of the barrel,

and it is plastered and sealed,

and one smeared and sealed with clay around that vessel—

it is a seal within a seal.

But if not

if he did not do this,

no.

This is not a seal within a seal!

A basket, and it is fastened,

if one placed a basket over the barrel and fastened it tightly to the sides of the barrel, while the barrel was already closed and sealed with clay—

it is a seal within a seal,

because the gentile will not trouble himself to repeat precisely all these actions in order to counterfeit the seal and exchange the wine.

But if

not

the basket

was fastened

tightly, and it can easily be removed from there,

it is not a seal within a seal.

And likewise,

a nod

a leather vessel in which wine is stored, placed

in

side

a diskaya [

a large basket placed on an animal, in which vessels and other objects are set],

if

the seal

closing

its mouth

of the wineskin is facing

downward, this is a seal within a seal.

Since, in order to remove the wine from it, the gentile would have to undo the fastening of the diskaya, turn over the wineskin, undo its fastenings, remove the wine, tie it again, turn it back over, and tie the diskaya—and all these actions involve considerable effort, we are not concerned that the gentile will perform them.

But if

the mouth

of the wineskin is facing

upward, this is not a seal within a seal.

Since the gentile does not have the trouble of turning over the wineskin and returning it to its place, he will not refrain from doing so and replacing the wine.

And when he bends its opening inward,

when he folds the fastening into the wineskin,

and draws a design and seals it,

and then tied and fastened it a second time,

this is a seal within a seal [

even if he did not place it inside a diskaya].

The Sages taught: At first

initially

they would say—

the wine of Ein Kushi,

which is a place inhabited by Kutim, is forbidden,

because

it is near

the city of Birat Serika,

which is a city of gentiles.

And

the wine of

Barkata,

which is also a city inhabited by Kutim,

is forbidden because

it is near

Kfar Parshai,

which is a village of gentiles.

And

the wine

of Zagdor,

a place inhabited by Kutim,

is forbidden because of Kfar Shalim,

which is a place inhabited by gentiles. [ And all this was at first.]

Afterward

they reconsidered and said

that

barrels

coming from the Kutim and

open—

are forbidden. And sealed ones—

are permitted.

The Gemara asks:

Initially,

at the beginning, when they prohibited all barrels that came from them,

what did they hold,

what was their reasoning?

And ultimately,

when they prohibited only open barrels and permitted sealed ones,

what did they hold,

what was the reasoning for this?

Initially,

at the beginning,

they held

that

a Kuti does not object to a gentile’s contact

that renders his wine subject to the law of yayin nesekh. Therefore,

it makes no difference

whether the law of

open barrels is different, and it makes no difference

whether the law of

sealed

barrels is different; in both cases there is concern that the gentile who lives in the nearby place may have touched them.

And ultimately they held that

indeed,

he does not take care with regard to open barrels,

the Kuti is not particular about open barrels. Therefore they are forbidden, as perhaps the gentile touched them.

However, with regard to

sealed ones,

the sealed barrels,

he is extremely particular

that the gentile should not touch them, since he wants to sell them to a Jew. Therefore they are permitted.

The Gemara asks:

And

barrels that are

sealed are permitted?