Avodah Zarah 33a — the Talmud in English

Since ![](pamud.bmp "

precise page location")

he is attached to it,

he clings to idolatry,

he goes back again,

he will go and return there in order to give thanks to it.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

But it was taught in a beraita: A Jew who goes to a place of idolatry, whether on the way there or on the way back—

is forbidden.

But here we said that on the way there it is permitted?

And the Gemara answers:

Rav Ashi said: When that beraita was taught,

that beraita, which forbids both on the way there and on the way back, was speaking

of an apostate Jew, for he certainly goes,

he certainly goes to idolatry, and presumably he will not retract. Whereas the ruling that Shmuel brings here speaks of an ordinary Jew who is not an apostate.

The Sages taught: A gentile who goes to a fair

a market that is made in honor of idolatry

whether

the gentile is

on the way there

to this market, and

whether

he is

on the way back

from this market,

it is permitted

to conduct business with him.

But

a Jew who goes to a fair

of idolatry,

on the way there it is permitted

to conduct business with him, but

on the way back

from there

it is forbidden.

And the Gemara examines this:

What is different with a Jew, that on the way back it is forbidden

to conduct business with him, whereas with a gentile it is permitted? This is because

we say: He sold idolatrous objects,

he sold images there in the market,

and now the money of idolatrous objects is with him,

it is in his possession. And because of this, it is forbidden to conduct business with him, so as not to derive benefit from this money.

If so,

with a gentile also, let us say

the same thing about him:

He sold idolatrous objects,

he sold there, and now

the money of idolatrous objects is with him,

it is in his possession. And should we forbid conducting business even with him on his return?

Rather,

if you will say that regarding

a gentile we say,

we say:

He sold a cloak,

he sold a cloak there,

he sold wine

he sold wine there, and not specifically objects of idolatry. Therefore his money is permitted.

If so, regarding

a Jew also let us say: Perhaps he sold a cloak, he sold wine,

and why is the money of a Jew returning from there forbidden?

And the Gemara explains:

If he had it,

if the Jew had a cloak or wine to sell,

he would have sold it here

he would have sold them here, among us, and would not have needed to trouble himself to go as far as a market of idolatry. And since in any event he went there, it is reasonable that he sold objects of idolatry there, and therefore his money is forbidden.

We learned in our Mishna:

And those who come

from there—

are permitted

to conduct business with them.

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: They taught

this law

only when

the gentiles returning from there are not

bound to one another

and coming as a single group.

But

if they are

bound to one another

and constitute a single group,

they are forbidden

to conduct business with them. Since they are a single group,

let us say

that

his intention is to return

with them again to the house of idolatry.

We learned in our Mishna:

The wineskins

leather vessels of

the gentiles,

and the wine of a Jew gathered in them, are forbidden. And their prohibition is a prohibition of benefit, these are the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: Their prohibition is not a prohibition of benefit.

The Sages taught: Wineskins

of

the gentiles,

if they were

scraped,

scraped and without pitch, and

new—

they are

permitted.

Since even if there had been wine in them for a short time, the leather did not absorb it.

And this law applies specifically to leather wineskins. But earthenware vessels absorb immediately and are forbidden. And if the vessels were

old and

or

pitched,

coated with pitch on the inside—

they are forbidden.

For an old vessel in which libation wine had been for a long time certainly absorbed from it.

And likewise, if it was coated with pitch, the pitch immediately absorbed from the wine. Therefore these vessels are forbidden.

And if

a gentile reheated them,

he melted the pitch inside them,

and treated them and put wine into them,

while the pitch was hot, for this is what they would do in order to dissipate the bitter taste of the pitch,

and

there was

a Jew standing over him—

he need not be concerned

that perhaps the gentile performed libation with the wine.

The Gemara asks:

But since the gentile puts wine into them, while a Jew is standing over him—

what has happened,

what benefit did the Jew gain by standing there? In the end, it is the wine of gentiles, since the gentile put it in?

Rav Pappa said: This is what it means,

this is how this law was stated:

A gentile reheated them,

he melted the pitch for coating the wineskin,

and

the gentile also

treated them, and

however,

a Jew

is the one who

puts wine into them, and another Jew stands

over him. And he need not be concerned

that perhaps it is libation wine.

And the Gemara wonders:

And

why,

since a Jew puts wine into them, another Jew

stands

over him—why do I need this?

For this is not the wine of gentiles at all!

And the Gemara answers:

Perhaps

maybe

because of his preoccupation

the preoccupation of the Jew occupied with pouring the wine into the wineskin,

he performs libation

the gentile performs libation with the wine,

and he is unaware.

Perhaps the Jew who is putting the wine into the pitch inside the wineskin will not pay attention to observe the gentile’s act, and he will perform libation with it. Therefore another Jew must stand over him to guard against the gentile.

Rav Zevid said:

There is no need to alter what was brought initially.

And indeed, it is as you said at first,

as we said initially, that the gentile is indeed the one who puts the wine into the wineskin.

And here,

in this manner there is no concern for libation wine, because

at the time that he pours it,

at the time that the gentile puts the wine into the wineskin coated with pitch,

it becomes like

something that

throws water into clay,

and destroys it, and the wine perishes on its own. For the wine put into the pitch is lost and its taste is nullified. It mixes into and is lost within the pitch. And when the pitch dries, the wine perishes and is no longer emitted. And therefore there is no concern that libation wine will mix with the wine that is subsequently put into the wineskin.

Rav Pappi said: Learn from this

we learn

from

this statement

of Rav Zevid,

that

this gentile who poured wine into the salt of a Jew,

who put wine into a vessel full of a Jew’s salt,

it is permitted,

the salt is permitted. For the wine is absorbed and consumed within the salt.

Rav Ashi challenged him: Are they comparable,

is one who puts wine into pitch comparable to one who puts wine into salt?

For

there

there, in the pitch,

it goes

the wine goes

to waste

within the pitch, and no longer exists at all.

But

here,

here, when wine is put into salt,

it does not go

the wine does not go

to waste,

but gives taste to the salt forever, and does not dry up and disappear.

There was an incident involving

Bar Adda the Arab,

an Arab, who

seized

snatched

those wineskins

several wineskins

from Rav Yitzhak bar Yosef.

He put wine into them

he put wine into them,

and returned them to him

he returned them to him.

He came and asked in the beit-midrash,

he came and asked in the beit-midrash what the law of these wineskins was.

Rabbi Yirmeya said to him: This is what Rabbi Ami ruled, as a practical ruling: Fill them with water for three days

so that the water will absorb the wine absorbed in the vessel,

and

after three days,

pour it out,

pour out this water.

And Rava said: One must pour it out

replace the water

from time to time,

every twenty-four hours during those three days.

They thought

they learned and reasoned regarding this law that

these matters

this law, that the vessel is rendered fit by putting water into it for three days, applies only to

our

vessel [like the vessel of Rav Yitzhak bar Yosef], which had been in their possession for a short time.

But theirs,

their vessel, which had remained in their possession for a long time and absorbed their wine,

not

this remedy is effective for it, and it cannot be rendered fit at all.

When

when

Ravin came, he said

in the name of

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish:

The law is

one

for a wineskin

of ours

that was in the possession of a gentile,

and

the law is

one

for a wineskin

of theirs

that is now in our possession: both have a remedy by filling them with wine for three days and pouring it out.

Rav Aḥa son of Rava thought

he thought

before

before

Rav Ashi, to say

that the law is as follows:

These matters,

this law, that they have a remedy by placing them in water for three days, applies only to

wineskins

of leather that came from the gentiles.

But earthenware jars

which absorb much of the wine placed in them,

not.

They have no remedy at all.

Rav Ashi said to him: It makes no difference ,

the law of the

jugs, and it makes no difference

the law of the

pitchers,

but both have this remedy: he places water in them for three days and pours it out.

The Sages taught: pitchers of idolaters

that an Israelite wishes to use. If they are

new and scraped

—that they were never coated with pitch—

they are permitted.

But if they are

old and [or]

or

tarred,

coated with pitch—

they are forbidden.

If the

idolater had put wine into them,

and

an Israelite

now wishes to use them, the law is: he

places water into them

for three days and pours it out, and the pitchers are permitted.

And likewise, if

an idolater

had

put wine into them, an Israelite puts brine and fish sauce into them, and need not be concerned

because of the wine. For the brine of fish and the fish sauce, the oil of fish, burn up the wine and destroy it.