Avodah Zarah 55b (נה:) — the Talmud in English

But one may not harvest grapes with him:

It is forbidden for an Israelite to hire himself to a gentile to harvest grapes with him, because the gentile will place them in his impure winepress for treading, and when he treads them they will become impure. Thus, the Israelite is found to cause produce of Eretz Yisrael to become impure.

That is to say: If the gentile has already begun treading them, they have already become impure, and the Israelite adds nothing to their impurity. But as long as they have not been trodden, they are not impure, since they have not yet been rendered susceptible to impurity; now the gentile will render them impure through the action caused by the Israelite worker. Thus, the Israelite is found to cause produce of Eretz Yisrael to become impure.

In what case is this statement said? Regarding treading with a gentile, who was not commanded concerning the prohibition against causing produce of Eretz Yisrael to become impure. But

an Israelite who makes

his produce

impure:

he is committing a transgression, since he was commanded concerning this matter. Therefore,

one may neither tread nor harvest grapes with him:

It is forbidden to hire oneself to assist him in treading the grapes, and certainly in harvesting them.

Because his winepress is impure, and the worker is thereby assisting those who commit transgressions, since the grapes will become impure through their treading, when they are moistened by the wine that renders them susceptible to impurity.

Rather, one must withdraw from them, so that he will not become accustomed to doing so.

But one may transport with him:

It is permitted to assist an Israelite who makes his produce impure by transporting

barrels

that are empty

to the winepress, and one may bring with him

full barrels

from the winepress:

Since they have already become impure in the winepress, it is permitted to place the wine in impure barrels.

Likewise,

a baker who makes

his dough

impure

and renders it impure with his impure vessels:

one may neither knead nor shape dough

(rolling out the dough)

with him,

because it is forbidden to assist those who commit transgressions, and every act of shaping in this case is part of the transgression.

But one may transport bread with him to the palter,

the one who bakes the bread.

Gemara:

Rav Huna said: Once the wine has begun to flow

down the slope of the winepress, from the upper part toward the lower part,

it becomes wine of libation

before it enters the pit.

And we raise an objection:

We learned

in our Mishna:

One may purchase a trodden winepress from a gentile, even though he took [the wine] in his hand and placed it

(the version of the Bach:

that he takes [the wine] in his hand and places it)

on the heap,

because it is not called wine until it enters the pit.

This is difficult for Rav Huna, who says that it is called wine once it flows while still in the winepress.

And we answer:

Rav Huna said:

Our Mishna is speaking

of a sealed winepress,

whose channel through which the wine descends to the pit has been sealed,

and

the winepress is

full

of grapes. The wine has not begun to flow from the winepress to the pit; it has not moved from its place, but remains where it was squeezed.

Accordingly, our Mishna maintains that it is not called wine, since it is not flowing. But when the channel is not sealed and the wine runs from the winepress into the pit, it is called wine even before it enters the pit, in accordance with Rav Huna’s opinion.

And we raise an objection:

ta shma,

the continuation of the Mishna:

And it does not become wine of libation until it descends into the pit.

This indicates that the wine is indeed flowing from the winepress and is on its way to the pit, yet what flows while still in the winepress is not called wine; only what has descended into the pit is called wine.

This is difficult for Rav Huna?

And we answer:

Here, too,

these words of the Mishna are speaking

of a sealed and full winepress,

and therefore it does not become wine of libation, since it has not flowed—

According to this interpretation, the meaning of the Mishna is as follows: It does not become wine of libation because the winepress is sealed, until he removes the stopper and the wine begins to descend. From the beginning of its descent and flow, it is called wine, and then even the wine in the winepress becomes wine of libation, in accordance with Rav Huna’s statement.

As long as he has not removed the stopper, it is permitted to purchase the winepress from the gentile.

And we raise an objection:

ta shma,

the continuation of the Mishna:

It descended into the pit—

what is in the pit is forbidden, but the rest is permitted.

This final clause certainly speaks of wine flowing from the winepress into the pit, since it says, “It descended into the pit.” Nevertheless, the Mishna forbids only what is in the pit, and not what is flowing in the winepress. This is difficult for Rav Huna?

And we answer:

Rav Huna said: This is not difficult. Here, [the ruling is] in the first Mishna; there, [the ruling is] in the later Mishna.

Indeed, the Mishna maintains that wine flowing in the winepress does not become wine of libation even when the winepress is not sealed, contrary to Rav Huna’s statement—

Nevertheless, there is no difficulty from the Mishna against Rav Huna—

Since this Mishna is the “first Mishna,” meaning that at first the tanna held this view. He subsequently retracted it, and that is called the “later Mishna.”

The later Mishna maintains that wine flowing in the winepress becomes wine of libation.

And Rav Huna stated his ruling in accordance with the view of the “later Mishna.”

As it was taught:

The Gemara cites a baraita, in which it is stated that the tanna retracted his position:

At first,

the Sages

would say: bet-dalet

(this is an acronym for the halakhot of

b

harvesting,

t

reading and

t

reading), and these are the three halakhot of our Mishna:

1.

One may not harvest grapes with a gentile in the winepress,

as explained in our Mishna. Likewise, one may not do so with an Israelite who makes his produce impure, because

it is forbidden to cause the

produce

of non-sacred produce in Eretz Yisrael to become impure,

and harvesting causes impurity, since the grapes will become impure in the impure winepress.

2.

And one may not tread with an Israelite who makes his produce impure,

even though the produce has already become impure through the treading of the sinful Israelite, so that he is not causing it to become impure, nevertheless it is forbidden, because

it is forbidden to assist those who commit transgressions,

so that he will not become accustomed to doing so.

3.

But one may tread with a gentile in the winepress,

because there is no causing of impurity here, since the grapes have already become impure through the gentile’s treading. Nor is there a prohibition against “assisting those who commit transgressions,” because the gentile is not a transgressor with regard to rendering produce of Eretz Yisrael impure, as he was not commanded concerning this—

And the Gemara explains: Rather, what might you say? Let us prohibit it because it is forbidden to profit

from

the

words of

Rav Huna,

who maintains that it becomes wine of libation while still in the winepress—

There is no prohibition here. And we are not concerned with Rav Huna’s opinion; rather, it does not become wine until it descends into the pit, as explained.

The baraita continues:

And they retracted

their position,

saying: dalet-bet

(the version of the Bach:

dalet-bet-bet;

these are mnemonic signs for the halakhot of

t

reading,

h

arvesting, and

h

arvesting)—

Some of the three halakhot of the later Mishna are the reverse of those of the first Mishna.

Explanation: In the later Mishna, the tanna maintains that the wine becomes wine of libation in the winepress, before descending into the pit, in accordance with Rav Huna’s statement.

He further maintains that it is permitted to cause non-sacred produce of Eretz Yisrael to become impure.

In what case is this statement said? With regard to the produce of gentiles, from which he is not destined to separate teruma. But with regard to the produce of an Israelite that is tevel for teruma—that is, it is “tevel,” forbidden to eat until its terumot have been separated—it is forbidden to cause this produce to become impure.

And this is derived from what is stated: “And I, behold, have given you charge of My terumot” (Numbers 18), and we expound: Teruma requires protection from impurity. And from the fact that it is stated in the plural, “My terumot,” we expound that protection also applies to produce that is still tevel, from which teruma will eventually be separated. Therefore, it is forbidden to render it impure.

Accordingly:

1.

One may not tread with a gentile in the winepress.

Because the Israelite profits from objects forbidden for benefit, since the wine becomes wine of libation while it is still in the winepress, before descending into the pit.

And the Gemara explains:

Because of

the words of

Rav Huna,

who maintains this position.