Avodah Zarah 56b (נו:) — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara discusses:

And

according to

Rava, who did not distinguish between them—

who did not distinguish between yayin nesekh and tithes—for earlier he raised a contradiction between our Mishna and the Mishna in tractate Ma'asrot, and answered: This is not difficult; this one is the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, and that one is the opinion of the Rabbis. But seemingly, why did he not resolve the contradiction as follows: Our Mishna was stringent with regard to yayin nesekh; therefore, the wine becomes prohibited even before it has settled in the pit, whereas with regard to tithes, it is not called wine until it has settled in the pit? It follows that Rava did not distinguish between yayin nesekh and tithes, but equated their laws.

And according to Rava, indeed,

he establishes it—

he reconciles the Mishnayot and the beraita—

as three tannaitic opinions,

and maintains that there are three opinions in this law as to when wine is considered wine, as explained.

We learned in our Mishna:

Whatever is in the pit is prohibited, and the rest is permitted.

After the wine passes through the “channel” between the winepress and the pit, but before it descends into the pit, it passes through a vessel called a gargutni. This is a large basket that filters the wine from the skins and pits. When it becomes filled with skins and pits, it is returned to the winepress; that is, it is emptied into the winepress.

Rav Huna said: They taught this only

in our Mishna — that the wine in the winepress is permitted—

when the gargutni was not returned to the winepress—

but

if

the gargutni was returned to the winepress—

it is prohibited,

even the wine in the winepress. For the wine in the gargutni is prohibited, as will be explained, and it renders the wine and grapes in the winepress prohibited.

The Gemara now explains why the wine inside the gargutni is prohibited and who prohibits it, given that it was not in the pit:

The gargutni itself,

itself,

by what does it become prohibited?

Through the stream,

the stream of wine [the column of flow is called nitzok] descending from the gargutni into the pit connects the wine in the pit, which is prohibited through contact with the gentile, with the wine in the gargutni.

We learned in a Mishna with regard to the laws of ritual impurity and purity that a stream does not constitute a connection, as will be explained in the next chapter [72a]. And there, the amoraim disagree with regard to the laws of yayin nesekh: some maintain that a stream does not constitute a connection, just as it does not constitute a connection with regard to the laws of ritual impurity and purity. And there are amoraim who maintain that with regard to the laws of yayin nesekh, a stream does constitute a connection.

The Gemara now asks:

Can it be inferred

from Rav Huna's statement that he maintains

that a stream constitutes a connection?

The Gemara rejects the inference: This does not prove that Rav Huna holds that a stream constitutes a connection. Rather, he forbids the wine when the gargutni was returned to the winepress only in a case where “its pit overflowed upon it.” That is, the pit filled, and the wine reached the bottom edge of the gargutni. Since the gargutni is a perforated vessel, the forbidden wine in the pit became mixed with the wine in the gargutni. Therefore, the wine in the gargutni became forbidden, and when it is returned and poured into the winepress, the wine in the winepress becomes forbidden.

The Gemara rejects this as proof that Rav Huna maintains that a stream constitutes a connection. Rather, when he prohibited the gargutni after it was returned to the winepress, it was only in a case where “its pit caused it to overflow”; that is, the pit became full, and the wine reached the bottom of the gargutni. Since it is a perforated vessel, the prohibited wine in the pit became mixed with the wine in the gargutni. Therefore, the wine in the gargutni became prohibited, and when it is returned and poured into the winepress, the wine in the winepress becomes prohibited.

As Rabbi Hiyya taught,

in the passage there [72b], and interpreted the Mishna there as referring to a case of

“its flask caused it to overflow,”

as will be explained there—

Here too,

the case is one such as:

“its pit caused it to overflow,”

as explained.

The Gemara relates:

There was a certain child,

a boy,

who taught

who had studied tractate

Avoda Zara at the age of six years,

when he was six years old!

They asked him

they questioned him:

What

is the law; is it permitted

to tread grapes together with a gentile in the winepress?

He said to them,

the child to those who asked him:

One may tread grapes together with a gentile in the winepress.

And we challenge this:

But he is pouring a libation,

for the gentile is touching the wine

with his hands,

and thereby prohibiting it. And we learned in the later Mishna that one may not tread grapes together with a gentile in the winepress, because the gentile touches the wine, and the wine in the winepress is considered wine and becomes prohibited. And we answer: This is a case such as

where we tied his hands,

the gentile tied his hands so that he would not touch the wine, and he trod the grapes with his feet.

And we challenge this:

But he is pouring a libation with his foot;

the gentile touched the wine with his feet?

And we conclude:

A libation with the foot—

is not called a libation,

it does not bear the designation of a libation. Therefore, it is permitted.

The Gemara continues to discuss the law of “a libation with the foot.” And it relates an incident:

There was a certain incident that occurred in Nehardea,

there was an incident in the city of Nehardea [the city of Shmuel],

in which they trod,

with their feet,

a Jew and a gentile that certain wine,

some wine.

This question was brought before Shmuel,

and Shmuel delayed his response for three pilgrimage festivals,

he deferred his answer for three pilgrimage festivals.

And the Gemara asks:

What is the reason

for his delay in responding? What was his uncertainty?