Avodah Zarah 32a — the Talmud in English

Rav Yosef said: ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

this beer vinegar,

that beer vinegar

of Aramaeans

of gentiles —

is forbidden.

Because,

they mix into it dregs of yayin nesekh,

for they mix into it dregs of yayin nesekh.

Rav Ashi said: And

when the gentiles bring this beverage

f

r

om a storehouse [

a storeroom made for long-term storage] —

it is permitted. Since

if

they mix into it

these dregs —

it becomes putrid,

for it becomes foul-smelling over time.

Only beverages that stand in vessels ordinarily for a short time are subject to concern because of these dregs.

We learned in our Mishna:

and Hadrianic pottery —

it too is forbidden for benefit.

The Gemara asks:

what

what is the pottery

called Hadrianic?

Rav Judah said in the name of Samuel: Pottery belonging to

the emperor Hadrian.

And when Hadrian would go out on his journeys, he would take this pottery with him.

And what was the nature of this pottery?

When

when

Rav Dimi

came from the Land of Israel to Babylonia,

he said:

The nature of this pottery was as follows —

virgin soil

new soil

it was, which no person had ever worked,

and

he worked

Hadrian,

and planted it

with vines. And since this soil was virgin, its power was great, and it produced extremely strong wine.

And he would put the wine into white jars,

he placed this wine in white, new earthenware vessels,

and they would absorb their wine,

and these jars would swallow and draw out much of the wine [for the jars were new and had no other absorption in them, and they would absorb much of this wine]].

And

after all this,

they would break them into pottery shards,

they would break the earthenware vessels,

and carry them together with them,

and carry with them the wine-soaked shards to every place.

And wherever they arrived,

every place to which they arrived,

they would soak them,

they would soak these shards in water,

and drink

they would drink from this water, whose taste was the taste of the wine absorbed in the shards.

Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said: And

the strength of this beverage made from the absorbed shards is such that wine

our first,

made from the first pressing of the grapes, its strength is only

like their third [

like wine made from the water in which they soaked the pottery the third time]!

And after we learned the extent of this pottery’s absorption and its severity, the Gemara raises a doubt:

They raised a question before them: What is

whether it is permitted

to support with them

with these shards, in which yayin nesekh forbidden for benefit is absorbed,

the legs of a bed?

And the basis of the doubt is: when

he desires its continued existence

of the wine inside it, which is forbidden for benefit, not for the purpose of using the wine [for one who supports the legs of a bed with this pottery does not need the wine absorbed in it, but only the pottery], and the use is carried out

through another thing,

namely, the pottery. Whether

this use is permitted,

this use is permitted,

or forbidden?

And the Gemara brings proof to establish this —

come and hear: Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yohanan

disagreed about this matter.

One forbade,

and one permitted

he permitted. And if so, this matter has already been taught in their dispute. (

and the halakha is according to the one who forbids —

the halakha follows the words of

the one who forbids.)

The Gemara objects:

We raise an objection

from what we learned in the Tosefta:

the small jars,

small earthenware vessels [jars],

and the leather vessels,

leather vessels

of idolaters,

if there was

Jewish wine gathered in them, it is forbidden

the wine

for drinking, and permitted for benefit.

Shimon ben Guda testified before Rabban Gamaliel’s son concerning Rabban Gamaliel

that he had seen

Rabban Gamaliel drink

Rabban Gamaliel

from it

from this vessel

in Akko, and they did not agree with him

the Sages concerning this matter.

And likewise we learned in the Tosefta there:

Leather flasks of idolaters

made of leather,

Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says in the name of

in the name of

Rabbi Joshua ben Kaposai: It is forbidden to make from them saddle-cloths for a donkey

to place upon it for the rider’s sitting.

This presents a difficulty: earlier an opinion was brought that if one desires the continued existence of a vessel in which gentile wine is absorbed, for the sake of another matter, it is permitted.

But here,

here, regarding the leather flasks of idolaters,

where

the Jew

desires its continued existence through another thing,

for the purpose of the saddle-cloth to place on the donkey, and he does not need the wine absorbed in the leather flask,

and

in any event

it teaches

here

that it is forbidden,

and how, regarding pottery, was it said above that it is permitted?!

And the Gemara answers the objector:

But according to your reasoning,

according to this view of yours expressed in the objection, that apparently every vessel of gentiles should be forbidden for benefit, if so,

the jars of idolaters should be forbidden to purchase,

they should be forbidden to purchase, and how nevertheless do people purchase jars from them?

What is different about leather flasks

which are forbidden,

and what is different about jars,

which are apparently permitted?

Rava said:

the reason on account of which leather flasks of gentiles are forbidden even for another use is

a decree lest it split

tear

his leather flask

of the Jew,

and he take it

the gentile’s leather flask

and sew it over his leather flask,

in order to patch the tear. And it turns out that the gentile’s wine absorbed in the patch of the leather flask mixes with and imparts flavor to the Jew’s wine gathered in that leather flask. But with jars and pottery, which cannot be patched, this concern does not exist.

The Gemara asks:

And according to the one who says that desiring its continued existence through another thing is forbidden, what is different about

in what way do

jars, which are permitted,

which are permitted to purchase from gentiles, differ from pottery absorbed with wine, such as Hadrianic pottery, which is forbidden?

And the Gemara answers:

He can say to you,

the one who forbids the pottery can say and answer you that the distinction is as follows:

There,

with jars,

its forbidden substance is not present in its visible form,

the forbidden wine is not recognizable. But

here,

with Hadrianic pottery absorbed with wine,

its forbidden substance is present in its visible form,

the wine exists and is recognizable. And for this reason the pottery is forbidden.

We learned in the beraita above:

and they did not agree with him

the Sages did not agree with Rabban Gamaliel, who held that it is permitted to drink from vessels of gentiles.

And we raise a contradiction,

and this is difficult as a contradiction, for we learned in a beraita:

Wine that comes in the leather vessels of idolaters is forbidden for drinking and permitted for benefit. Shimon ben Guda testified before Rabban Gamaliel’s son concerning Rabban Gamaliel that he drank from it in Akko, and they agreed with him!

But above it is stated that the Sages did not agree with him? The Gemara answers:

What does “they did not agree with him,” which is stated there, mean?

which we learned regarding that incident? It refers to

his entire group,

the group of sages of Rabban Gamaliel, who did not agree with him.

But his son

of Rabban Gamaliel,

did agree with him!

He indeed agreed with this. And this is what is brought here, that “they agreed with him.” And who agreed? Rabban Gamaliel’s son.

If you wish, say

the testimony of Shimon ben

Guda was one matter. And

the testimony of Shimon ben

Guda was another matter.

There were two separate incidents here and two separate testimonies. In one of them, in the testimony of Shimon ben Guda before Rabban Gamaliel’s son, Rabban Gamaliel’s son did not agree with him. And afterward, in the testimony of Shimon ben Guda, he did agree with him.

We learned in our Mishna:

and perforated hides,

they too are forbidden for benefit.

The Sages taught: What is a perforated hide —

any one that is torn

the hide

opposite the heart, and pierced

the tear is made

like a chimney

round.

If there is a drop of blood upon it —

it is forbidden.

Since through this it is evident that the act was done during the animal’s lifetime, in the manner in which they do it for idolatry.