Avodah Zarah 57a (נז.) — the Talmud in English

Perhaps:

if you say,

because he held!

that if I find

if I find among all those who come for the Festival

a tanna who taught

that wine is forbidden even in benefit when a gentile touched it in a manner unlike that of those who pour libations,

in accordance with Rabbi Natan—

I will forbid it,

I will forbid the wine

even in benefit—

That is to say: The Gemara considered saying that Shmuel delayed ruling concerning the wine because he was searching for a source that would prohibit it, and he waited through three Festivals, perhaps someone would be found who would rule that it was forbidden.

The source that the Gemara found is the following: Rabbi Natan holds that if the gentile merely touched the wine, without pouring it as a libation for idol worship, it is nevertheless forbidden in benefit.

As it was taught:

We learned in a beraita: The Sages say:

If he measured

the wine belonging to a Jew,

whether by hand or by foot,

he inserted his hand or foot to measure the quantity of wine—

it may be sold,

the wine to a gentile. That is, through this contact the gentile did not prohibit the wine in benefit, since he did not intend to pour a libation but only to measure it, and he also did not agitate the wine.

[Agitation means moving the wine; this is the way of those who pour wine as a libation for idol worship.]

Rabbi Natan says:

If he measured it

by hand—

it is forbidden

in benefit, because he touched the wine even though he did not intend to pour a libation and did not agitate it; but if

by foot—

it is permitted.

And we raise an objection: Even if a tanna who holds in accordance with Rabbi Natan were found, that still would not provide him with a source for prohibiting the wine, because

perhaps what did he say—

in what case did

Rabbi Natan

say and prohibit through mere contact?—

By hand,

when he touched it with his hand; but when he touched it

by foot—

who says

that he prohibited it in benefit ?!

But in the incident in Nehardea, was the gentile not walking with his feet [through the wine]?

And we conclude:

Rather,

Shmuel delayed because he reasoned:

that if I find

if there is found

a tanna who permits

who permits

in accordance with Rabbi Shimon,

who permits even drinking when a gentile touched the wine without intending to pour a libation—

I will permit it,

I will permit the wine

even for drinking.

Rabbi Shimon's statement appears below, on page 60b, in the Mishna, where the Mishna presents several forms of a gentile's contact with wine without the intention of pouring a libation ,

and Rabbi Shimon permits them.

We have learned that Shmuel was uncertain: When a gentile touched wine without intending to pour a libation, should one rule in accordance with the tannaim who prohibit drinking it, or in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, who permits it?

The Gemara presents a similar incident and Rav's ruling.

According to Rashi's view , there were two grounds for leniency in that incident: first, the contact was without the intention of pouring a libation, and indeed without any intention to touch the wine at all; additionally, the gentile touched the wine through another object rather than with his body. The Gemara relates:

And it tells

of a certain incident,

that incident

which took place in

the city of

Biram.

A certain idolater was climbing a date palm,

he climbed a date palm,

and brought down a lulav,

he brought down a lulav from there.

As he was descending,

as he descended,

he touched its top [the version of the Bach:

the reading of the Bach:

at its beginning]

to wine,

he touched the wine with the top of the lulav,

unintentionally.

This question was brought before Rav—

Rav permitted selling it to gentiles,

Rav permitted selling it to a gentile; that is, he permitted it in benefit but prohibited it for drinking.

Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav: But are you not the one who said,

yet our master himself is the one who says:

a child on the day of his birth,

who has no intention,

(he

makes sacrificial wine

when he touches wine. How, then, did our master permit the wine in benefit?

He said to them,

Rav:

Perhaps what I said was

Regarding what I said—that a child makes sacrificial wine—namely, to prohibit it

for drinking; but to prohibit it

in

benefit—

did I say that

that I prohibited it in benefit?!

With regard to the matter itself,

we learned:

Rav said: A child on the day of his birth makes sacrificial wine.

Rav Shimi bar Ḥiyya raised an objection to Rav:

We learned a beraita contrary to Rav's statement:

The beraita discusses one who purchased slaves, where the slaves had already been circumcised but had not yet immersed, and it is established that as long as they have not been circumcised and immersed, they do not have the status of converts.

The beraita likewise discusses maidservants belonging to Jews who gave birth in a Jewish household, where those children were circumcised but had not immersed; they do not have the status of converts, despite having grown up in a Jewish household. [Since the maidservants themselves had not yet immersed, their children must therefore immerse; but if the maidservants had immersed, their children would not require immersion and would have the status of converts].

The discussion in the beraita concerns two halakhot:

A. The laws of ritual impurity: The Sages decreed that gentiles have the status of zavin with regard to all the laws of the impurity of a zav and a zava. For example, the saliva issuing from their mouths, as well as the other bodily discharges of a gentile—and the “imprint” of a gentile—are impure, just as the saliva and imprint of a zav are impure, even though no discharge was observed.

When the Sages decreed that gentiles are impure like zavin, they issued the decree as a definite status, not as a doubt. Therefore, they impart impurity even in the “market,” that is, in the public domain—

whereas if their impurity had the status of a doubt, they would not impart impurity in the public domain. As is known, any uncertainty concerning ritual impurity in the public domain is deemed pure.

The beraita comes to teach that this decree applies to these slaves and children of maidservants as long as they have not been circumcised and immersed.

The novelty of this halakha is that although the situation of a convert who was circumcised but did not immerse is uncommon—and we have the general principle that the Sages did not issue decrees concerning uncommon matters—in any event, their saliva and imprint impart impurity.

B. The laws of sacrificial wine: These slaves and children of maidservants do not have the status of converts, since they have not yet immersed. Therefore, their contact with a Jew's wine prohibits the wine.

And so we learned:

One who takes,

one who purchases

slaves from gentiles ,

who

have

been circumcised but have not immersed, and likewise the children of maidservants who have been circumcised but have not immersed—

Their saliva,

Their saliva,

their saliva,

and their imprint,

even

in the market,

which is the public domain—

are impure.

And some say,

and there is one who concludes:

pure,

because this is an uncommon matter, and the Sages did not issue a decree concerning something uncommon.

Their wine,

if they touched wine, if they are

adults—

they make sacrificial wine; but if they are

And which are adults and which are minors?

minors—

they do not make sacrificial wine.

And who are adults, and who are minors?

Adults:

when they

know the nature of idol worship and its appurtenances.

Minors:

when they

do not know the nature of idol worship and its appurtenances.

This concludes the beraita. Rav Shimi bar Ḥiyya challenges Rav:

In any event, it teaches,

this beraita teaches:

Adults—

no,

they do not make sacrificial wine;

minors—

And we answer: Explain it: We shall explain that which the beraita did not prohibit in the case of minors as referring to the sons of maidservants, only to the sons of maidservants; and in their case the beraita permitted them when they are minors, since they were born and raised in an Israelite household—the Sages did not decree regarding them as long as they are minors. But complete gentiles, or slaves purchased from gentiles—the Sages decreed regarding them even when they are on their first day. Regarding this interpretation of the beraita, we ask: How did we distinguish between slaves and sons of maidservants? But it says “and likewise,” the beraita compares their laws by saying: “and likewise” the sons of maidservants!

not,

they do not make sacrificial wine—

and this is difficult for Rav, who holds that a child on the day of his birth makes sacrificial wine ?

And we answer:

Interpret it:

Let us explain what the beraita did not prohibit in the case of minors

as referring to the children of maidservants,

to the children of maidservants alone. In their case the beraita permits the wine when they are minors, since they were born and raised in a Jewish household; the Sages did not decree concerning them as long as they are minors.

But in the case of wholly gentiles, or slaves purchased from gentiles, the Sages issued a decree concerning them even when they are children on the day of their birth.

Regarding this interpretation of the beraita, we ask: How can we distinguish between slaves and the children of maidservants?

Does it not say “and likewise”?

The beraita equates their laws by saying: “and likewise the children of maidservants”! According to your words, the children of maidservants should have been prohibited, just as minor slaves make sacrificial wine.

And we answer:

Concerning their saliva and imprint,

the beraita does not equate them with regard to all the laws in the beraita, but only with regard to what it taught—that they impart impurity through their saliva and imprint—

and in these laws the children of maidservants are indeed equivalent to slaves purchased from gentiles.

They are not equivalent, however, with regard to the laws of sacrificial wine, as explained.

And we ask:

That works—

this answer concerning the beraita works

according to the one who says:

Their saliva and imprint in the market are

impure.

According to him, the beraita can be interpreted as follows: Just as slaves impart impurity, “so too” the children of maidservants. This contains a novelty: Although they were raised in a Jewish household, they nevertheless impart impurity like gentiles—

But according to the one who says: Their saliva and imprint are

impure

pure,

there is a difficulty:

What can be said—

how is the beraita to be explained?

With regard to which law did it teach “and likewise”? If we say that just as the saliva and imprint of slaves are pure, so too those of the children of maidservants—

that is obvious! The children of maidservants are even farther removed from being gentiles, since they were raised in a Jewish household. [This is the reason Rav distinguished between them with regard to the law of sacrificial wine ].

Rather, it must be said that the comparison made by the beraita between the children of maidservants and slaves concerns the law of sacrificial wine. In both cases, the beraita holds that adults make sacrificial wine, whereas minors do not.

Is this not difficult for Rav's statement? And we answer: The comparison is not between the children of maidservants and slaves. On the contrary, slaves were compared with the children of maidservants with regard to the law of sacrificial wine—

This teaches us,

the beraita comes to teach us:

Slaves are comparable,

their law is similar

to that of the children of maidservants.

Just as the children of maidservants,

when they

have been circumcised but have not immersed—

they are the ones who make sacrificial wine,

whereas when they

have been circumcised and immersed—

they do not

make sacrificial wine, and they are entirely like Jews—

so too slaves:

As soon as they have been circumcised and immersed, they are like Jews and do not make sacrificial wine !

What is the novelty in this? They have fulfilled everything incumbent upon them.

To exclude,

it comes to exclude

from

the statement of

Rav Naḥman in the name of Shmuel—

For Rav Naḥman said in the name of Shmuel: One who purchases slaves from gentiles, even though they have been circumcised and immersed—

they make sacrificial wine until

the name of

idol

worship disappears from their mouths—

This teaches us,

the beraita teaches us

not

in accordance with Shmuel's statement. Rather, just as the children of maidservants, immediately after they have been circumcised and immersed, do not make sacrificial wine, so too slaves purchased from gentiles do not make sacrificial wine.

And by saying “and likewise,” the baraita intended this comparison.

With regard to the subject itself,

we learned:

Rav Naḥman said that Shmuel said: One who purchases slaves from gentiles, even though they have been circumcised and immersed—

they render wine yayin nesekh until

the name of

idol worship disappears from their mouths.

And the Gemara asks:

How long—

is the period “until the name of idol worship disappears from their mouths"?

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Until twelve months.

Rabbah objected [

an alternative version:

Rava]

to Rav Naḥman:

He responds by citing this baraita:

One who purchases slaves from gentiles who have been circumcised but not immersed,

and likewise the sons of maidservants who have been circumcised but not immersed—

their spittle and their treading in the marketplace—

are impure.