Avodah Zarah 58a (נח.) — the Talmud in English

It is related below in the Gemara that Abaye challenged Rava with several accounts concerning early amoraim and with a beraita that contradicted Rava’s ruling. Rava consequently retracted his ruling and prohibited it.

Nevertheless, even after retracting his ruling, he could still maintain that the entire barrel was not prohibited from benefit on account of the wine mixed into it. Rather, only the value of the wine mixed into it was prohibited, and the barrel could be sold excluding the value of the yayin nesekh in it, in accordance with the words of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who maintains this position [below, 60b].

The Gemara relates:

Rav Huna, son of Rav Naḥman, happened to come to Meḥoza.

This was after Rava had retracted his ruling as a result of Abaye’s objections.

Rava said to Rav Elyakim, his attendant:

his servant,

“Shut the doors, shut the doors,”

close the door,

“so that people will not come and disturb me,”

so that people would not enter and trouble me! His intention was to refer to Rav Huna, who might defeat him in this halakhic matter. Nevertheless,

he entered to him,

Rav Huna entered Rava’s presence.

He said to him,

Rav Huna said to Rava:

“In a case such as this,

when a gentile swirled the wine of a Jew without intending to pour it as an offering to idolatry,

what”

what is the halakha?

He said to him,

Rava said to Rav Huna:

“It is prohibited even

for benefit,”

for Rava had indeed retracted his original ruling, as explained.

Rav Huna asked him:

“But was it not you who said

did our master not say:

‘Swirling’

without intending to pour it as an offering

‘does not render wine yayin nesekh’

[an alternative version:

“But does swirling render wine yayin nesekh?!”],

and did you not permit all the wine for benefit?”

Rava replied:

“I might have said

that I permitted

‘apart from the value of that wine,’

I permitted selling the barrel excluding the value of the wine in the vessel. But

‘the value of that wine,’

selling it together with the value of the wine in the vessel—

‘did I say so?’

did I say that it was permitted?!

Rava said this out of embarrassment, but the truth is that before Abaye caused him to retract his ruling, Rava had permitted selling even the wine in the vessel.

The Gemara now relates the account of how Abaye caused him to retract his ruling .

Rava said:

“When I came to

the city of

Pumbedita,”

“Naḥmani surrounded me with traditions and a Mishna teaching that it is prohibited,”

Abaye—whose designation was “Naḥmani”—surrounded me, that is, he challenged me with traditions of amoraim and a beraita, to prove that all the wine in the barrel was prohibited.

Rava related:

“The traditions—”

what were those traditions?

“There was this incident,

such an incident

that occurred in Nehardea—

and Shmuel prohibited it.”

And there was a similar incident

in Tiberias—

and Rabbi Yoḥanan prohibited it.”

“And I said to him,

I replied to Abaye: These traditions do not constitute an objection to me, because the reason Shmuel and Rabbi Yoḥanan prohibited it was that they imposed a stringency upon the people of their locales,

“since they are not Torah scholars,”

and not because the matter is prohibited according to the essential law.

“And he said to me,

Abaye said to me: But

“are Tiberias and Nehardea not

“Torah scholars,”

whereas

“the people of Meḥoza are Torah scholars?!”

Rava continued his account:

“The Mishna teaching—”

what is the beraita from which Abaye challenged me?

It is the beraita

“concerning the agrdamin.”

And this is what we learned: An agrdamin is a person appointed by the government over measures and weights, to ensure that merchants do not falsify them. He also tastes the wine , and he is

“a gentile who bored into the wine with a tube,”

a type of tube with which sealed barrels are pierced, through which the wine is drawn by mouth in order to taste it,

“and brought”

wine to his mouth,

“or if”

the agrdamin

“tasted from the cup and returned it,”

and poured the remainder

“into the barrel—”

“this was an incident, and the Sages prohibited it,”

the wine in the barrel.

Abaye challenged him:

“Is it not”

that they prohibited it even

“for benefit,”

despite the fact that this gentile had no intention whatsoever of pouring it as an offering, but merely intended to taste it for his business purposes? This presents a difficulty for Rava, who held that in such a case the wine in the vessel is not prohibited for benefit .

Rava replied to him:

“No,”

this is not the meaning of the beraita. Rather, they prohibited it

“for drinking,”

but it may be sold to a gentile; they did not prohibit it for benefit, since the gentile did not intend to pour it as an offering.

Abaye challenged him:

“If so,”

why did the beraita state, “and they prohibited it”?

“Let it teach,”

it should have taught

“it shall be sold,”

which indicates that only drinking is prohibited.

And if you wish to answer that the tanna of this beraita was not accustomed to use the expression, “it shall be sold,” that is not so,

“as it teaches in the latter clause.”

In the latter clause it indeed uses the expression “it shall be sold,” as we learned there:

“A madman,”

a deranged and quarrelsome person who acts hastily and without intent,

“a gentile who extended his hand into a barrel, thinking”

that the barrel

“contained oil, but it turned out to contain wine—”

“this was an incident, and they said,”

the Sages:

“It shall be sold,”

since he thought it contained oil, it is not prohibited for benefit, and there is no need to decree lest he have intended to pour it as an offering.

But in the first clause, concerning an agrdamin who bored into the wine with a tube or tasted from the cup, knowing that it was wine, there is concern that he may have poured it as an offering to idolatry.

In any event, it is evident that the tanna was precise in his wording: only in the latter clause did he say, “it shall be sold.” This indicates that when he said in the first clause, “and they prohibited it,” he was precise in his language and prohibited it even for benefit.

“An objection to Rava,”

this is the challenge because of which Rava retracted his ruling.

And we conclude:

“An objection.”

The Gemara relates another incident.

“Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Arza and Rabbi Yosei ben Nehorai were sitting and drinking wine,”

they were sitting and drinking wine.

“A certain man came. They said to him,”

Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Yosei said to the man:

“Come, pour us a drink,”

come and pour for us; fill our cups!

“After he poured into the cup,”

after he had filled their cups,

“the matter became clear,”

it was revealed

“that he was a gentile!”

“One,”

one of these amoraim

“prohibited”

the wine

“even for benefit. And one”

whereas the other

“one”

the second amora,

“permitted it,”

permitted the wine

“even for drinking.”

The Gemara explains their positions:

“Rabbi Yehoshua

ben Levi said: The one who prohibited it, prohibited it correctly; and the one who permitted it, permitted it correctly.”