Avodah Zarah 57a — the Talmud in English

If you say ,

if you say,

because he holds, ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

that if I find

if I find among all those who come for the pilgrimage,

a tanna who prohibited

wine from benefit even when the gentile touched it not in the manner of those who pour libations,

like Rabbi Natan—

we shall prohibit it,

I shall prohibit the wine,

even from benefit—

That is to say: the Gemara was proposing to say that Shmuel delayed ruling about the wine because he was seeking a source for prohibiting the wine, and waited three pilgrimage festivals, perhaps someone would be found who would instruct him that it was prohibited.

The source that the Gemara found is: Rabbi Natan, who holds that if the gentile merely touched the wine, and did not pour it as a libation to idolatry, it is also prohibited from benefit.

As it was taught,

we learned in a beraita: The Sages say:

If he measured

the wine of an Israelite,

whether by hand or by foot,

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

it shall be sold

the wine to a gentile; that is, through this touching the gentile did not prohibit the wine from benefit, since he did not intend to pour a libation, but to measure, and he also did not agitate the wine.

[Agitation is movement in the wine; this is the manner of those who pour wine libations to idolatry.]

Rabbi Natan says:

If he measured it

by hand—

it is prohibited

from benefit, because he touched the wine, despite the fact that he did not intend to pour a libation and did not agitate it; and if

by foot—

it is permitted.

And we raise the difficulty: Even if a tanna is found who holds like Rabbi Natan, he still has no source for prohibiting it, because

say that he said

in what did

Rabbi Natan

say, and prohibit through mere touching—

by hand,

when he touched it with his hand, whereas when he touched it

by foot—

who says

that he prohibited it from benefit ?!

But in this incident of Nehardea, was the gentile not proceeding with his feet?

And we conclude:

Rather,

therefore Shmuel delayed; he held:

that if I find,

if there is found

a tanna who permits,

who permits

like Rabbi Shimon,

who permits even drinking when the gentile touched it without the intention of pouring a libation—

I shall permit it,

I shall permit the wine

even for drinking.

The words of Rabbi Shimon are below [60b], in the Mishna, and there the Mishna brings several forms of a gentile’s touching 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 the intention of pouring a libation, should he rule like the tannaim who prohibit drinking it, or like Rabbi Shimon, who permits it?

The Gemara brings a similar incident, and Rav’s ruling.

And according to Rashi’s view , there were two grounds for leniency in that incident: one, that the touching was without the intention of pouring a libation, and even without any intention of touching at all; and further, that the gentile touched the wine through another object, and not with his body.

And the Gemara relates:

A certain incident,

that incident,

which occurred in

the city

of Bira,

in which a certain idolater was climbing a palm tree,

who climbed a palm tree,

and brought down a lulav,

and brought down a lulav from there.

As he was descending,

as he descended,

he touched its top [the reading of the Bach:

the Bach’s reading:

at the beginning]

of the lulav in wine,

he touched the wine with the top of the lulav,

without intention.

This question was brought before Rav—

Rav permitted selling it to idolaters,

Rav permitted him to sell it to a gentile; that is, he permitted it from benefit but prohibited it for drinking.

Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav: But, it is you who said,

yet our master himself is the one who says:

a child on his first day,

who has no intention,

(he

makes wine of libation

when he touches wine. And how did our master permit the wine from benefit?

He said to them,

Rav:

Say that I said,

in what did I say that the child makes wine of libation—I said to prohibit it

for drinking; whereas to prohibit it

from benefit—

did I say

that I prohibited it from benefit?!

As for the matter itself,

we learned,

Rav said: A child on his first day makes wine of libation.

Rav Shimi bar Hiyya raised an objection to Rav:

We learned a beraita not in accordance with Rav’s words:

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

And likewise the beraita discusses Israelite maidservants who gave birth in an Israelite household, and those children were circumcised but were not immersed; they do not have the status of converts, despite having grown up in an Israelite household. [Since the maidservants had still not immersed, their children must therefore immerse; but if the maidservants had immersed, their children would not require immersion, and they 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 those with a flux for all the laws of the impurity of a man or woman with a flux. For example: the spittle issuing from their mouths, and likewise the other bodily fluids of a gentile [bodily discharges], and likewise a gentile’s “treading-place”—are impure, just as the spittle and treading-place of one with a flux are impure, even though they did not see a flux.

When the Sages decreed that gentiles are impure like those with a flux, they decreed this as a certainty and not as a doubt; therefore they render impure even in the marketplace, that is, in the public domain—

For had their impurity been treated as a doubt, they would not render impure in the public domain. As is known, any uncertain impurity in the public domain is pure.

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

And the novelty of this halakha is: Despite the fact that this situation of a convert who has been circumcised but not immersed is uncommon, and the general principle is in our hands: in a matter that is uncommon, the Rabbis did not decree—in any event, they render them impure through their spittle and treading-place.

B. The laws of wine of libation: These slaves and sons of maidservants do not have the status of converts, since they have still not immersed; therefore, their touching Israelite wine prohibits the wine.

And so we learned:

One who purchases,

one who purchased

slaves from idolaters ,

who

were

circumcised but not immersed, and likewise the sons of maidservants who were circumcised but not immersed—

Their spittle, their spittle, and their treading-place,

even

in the marketplace,

which is the public domain—

impure.

And some say,

and there is one who concludes:

pure,

because it is an uncommon matter, and the Sages did not decree regarding something uncommon.

Their wine,

if they touched wine, if they are

adults—

they make wine of libation,

and if they are

minors—

they do not make wine of libation.

And which are adults and which are minors?

Adults:

when they

know the nature of idolatry and its accessories.

Minors:

when they

do not know the nature of idolatry and its accessories.

Thus far the beraita. And Rav Shimi bar Hiyya challenges Rav:

At any rate, it teaches,

we learned in this beraita:

adults—

no,

they make wine of libation;

minors—

not

they make wine of libation—

And this is difficult for Rav, who holds that a child on his first day makes wine of libation ?

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 it libation wine—

and this is difficult for Rav, who holds that a child who is one day old makes wine into libation wine .

And according to your words, it should have been prohibited in the case of the sons of maidservants, just as minor slaves make wine of libation?

Explain it:

Let us explain that the beraita did not prohibit the wine touched by minors as referring to

And we answer:

Their spittle and their treading-place,

what the beraita compares them in is not regarding all the laws of the beraita, but regarding what it taught—that they render impure through their spittle and treading-place—

And in these laws, indeed, the sons of maidservants are equal to slaves purchased from gentiles.

But not so regarding the laws of wine of libation—they are not equal, as explained.

And we ask: That works, this answer regarding the beraita works, according to the one who says: spittle and treading-place in the marketplace—

impure.

And according to his words, it is possible to explain the beraita: Just as slaves render impure, “so too” the sons of maidservants. And there is a novelty in this, that despite having grown up in an Israelite household, nevertheless they render impure like gentiles—

Rather, according to the one who says:

their spittle and treading-place—

pure,

it is difficult:

what is there to say,

how is the beraita explained?

Regarding which law did it teach “and likewise”? If we say: Just as the spittle and treading-place of slaves are pure, so too those of the sons of maidservants—

It is obvious! After all, the sons of maidservants are farther removed from being gentiles, since they grew up in an Israelite household. [For this reason Rav distinguished between them regarding the law of wine of libation .]

impure.

According to him, the beraita can be explained as follows: Just as slaves cause impurity, so too the children of slavewomen. This teaches a novelty: although they grew up in a Jewish household, they nevertheless cause impurity like gentiles—

Rather, it is necessary to say that the comparison that the beraita made between the sons of maidservants and slaves concerns the law of wine of libation! In both cases the beraita holds that adults make wine of libation, whereas minors do not make it.

And this is difficult for Rav’s words? And we answer: The comparison is not of the sons of maidservants to slaves; rather, on the contrary! Slaves were compared to the sons of maidservants regarding the law of wine of libation—

This teaches us,

the beraita comes to teach us:

slaves are analogous,

their law is similar

to that of the sons of maidservants.

Just as the sons of maidservants,

when they are circumcised but not immersed— it is then that they make wine of libation, whereas when they are

circumcised and immersed—

not

they make wine of libation, and they are completely like Israelites—

so too slaves,

and immediately when they are circumcised and immersed, they are like Israelites and do not make wine of libation !

to that of the children of slavewomen.

Just as the children of slavewomen,

when they

have been circumcised but have not immersed—

And what is the novelty in this matter? They have fulfilled everything incumbent upon them!

To exclude,

it comes to exclude

from

the words of

Rav Nahman said in the name of Shmuel—

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

they make wine of libation until the name of idolatry disappears from their mouths— This teaches us, the beraita teaches us, not according to Shmuel’s words; rather, just as the sons of maidservants, immediately after they have been circumcised and immersed, do not make wine of libation, so too slaves purchased from gentiles.

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 if they have been circumcised and immersed—

they make wine into libation wine until

the imprint of

idolatry

has disappeared from their mouths—

This teaches us

the beraita teaches us

not

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

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

[gufa],

we learned:

Rav Nahman said in the name of Shmuel: One who acquires slaves from gentiles, even though they were circumcised and immersed—

they make wine of libation until

the name of

idolatry sinks from their mouths.

And the Gemara asks:

And how much,

is the time of “until the name of idolatry sinks from their mouths"?

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Until twelve months.

Rabba objected [

another version:

Rava]

to Rav Nahman:

he responds from the words of this beraita:

One who acquires slaves from gentiles, who were circumcised but not immersed—

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

their spittle and their treading in the marketplace— ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

are impure.