Avodah Zarah 58a — the Talmud in English

It is related below in the Gemara that Abaye proved to Rava from several incidents involving the early amoraim and from a beraita, which contradict Rava’s ruling. And Rava retracted his ruling and prohibited it.

Nevertheless, even after his retraction, he could maintain that the entire barrel is not forbidden in benefit on account of the wine mixed into it; rather, only the value of the wine mixed into it is forbidden, and the barrel is to be sold except for the value of the yayin nesekh in it, in accordance with the words of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who maintains this [below, 60b].

And the Gemara relates:

Rav Huna son of Rav Nahman happened to come to Mehoza.

After Rava had retracted his ruling, because of Abaye’s objections,

Rava said to Rav Elyakim, his attendant—

his servant:

“Lock, lock the doors,”

close the door,

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

so that people should not enter to trouble me! And his intention was toward Rav Huna, so that he would not defeat him in this halakha. Nevertheless,

he entered to him,

Rav Huna entered to him.

He said to him,

Rav Huna to Rava:

“In a case such as this,

in this manner, when the gentile swirled the Jew’s wine without intending libation for idolatry,

what,”

what is the halakha?

He said to him,

Rava to Rav Huna:

“It is forbidden even

in benefit,

for Rava had in fact retracted his ruling, as explained.

Rav Huna asked him:

“But was it not you who said,”

did our master not say:

“Swirling,”

without intending libation—

“does not make yayin nesekh” [

another version:

“But does swirling make yayin nesekh?!” ],

and you permitted all the wine in benefit?

Rava answered him:

“Say that I said,

that I said to permit,

“except for the value of that wine,”

I permitted selling the barrel except for the value of the wine in the ladle. But

“the value of that wine,”

to sell it together with the value of the wine in the ladle—

“did I say,”

did I say to permit it?!

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

And now the Gemara relates the account through which Abaye caused him to retract his ruling .

Rava said:

“When I came to

the city

Pumbedita—

Nahmani surrounded me with traditions and a mishna that prohibited,

he surrounded me, meaning Abaye [whose appellation was “Nahmani”] challenged me from traditions of amoraim and a beraita, to prove to me that all the wine in the barrel is forbidden.

And Rava relates:

“The tradition,”

what were the traditions?

“That incident,”

such an incident,

“that took place in Nehardea”—

“and Shmuel prohibited it.”

And such an incident also took place

“in Tiberias”—

“and Rabbi Yohanan prohibited it.”

“And I said to him,”

I answered Abaye: There is no objection to me from these traditions, for the reason that Shmuel and Rabbi Yohanan prohibited it is that they were stringent with the people of their place,

“because they are not people of Torah,”

and not because it is forbidden according to the fundamental law.

“And he said to me,”

Abaye said to me: But

“are Tiberias and Nehardea not

people of Torah,

while

“the people of Mehoza are people of Torah?!”

And Rava continues to relate:

“The mishna,”

what is the beraita from which Abaye challenged me?

It is the beraita

“of the agardemin.”

And so we learned: Agardemin—a person appointed by the kingdom over measures and weights, so that the merchants should not deceive with them. And he also tastes the wine , and he is

“a gentile who pierced with a siphon,”

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

“and raised”

wine to his mouth,

“or the

agardemin

“tasted from the cup and returned it,”

and poured the remnants

“into the barrel”—

“this was an incident, and they prohibited it,”

the Sages prohibited the wine in the barrel.

And Abaye challenges:

“Is it not that,”

that they prohibited even

“in benefit,”

despite the fact that this gentile did not intend to libate at all, but only to taste it for his business purposes? This is a difficulty against Rava, who maintains that in such a case the wine in the ladle is not prohibited in benefit .

And Rava answered him:

“No,”

this is not the explanation of the beraita, but they prohibited it

“for drinking,”

whereas selling it to a gentile is permitted, and they did not prohibit it in benefit, since the gentile did not intend to libate.

And Abaye challenges him:

“If so,”

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

“Let it teach,”

it should have taught

“it is to be sold,”

which implies prohibition for drinking only.

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

“as it teaches in the latter clause,”

for in the latter clause it indeed teaches the expression “it is to be sold,” as we learned in the latter clause:

“A madman,”

a deranged and quarrelsome person who does things hastily without intention,

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

the barrel

“was one of oil, and it turned out to be one of wine”—

“this was an incident, and they said,”

the Sages:

“It is to be sold,”

since he thought it was one of oil, it is therefore not forbidden in benefit, and there is no need to decree lest he intended to libate.

But in the first clause, concerning the agardemin who pierced with a siphon or tasted from the cup, knowing that it was wine, there is concern lest he libated it for idolatry.

In any event, it is proven that the tanna was precise in his wording, and only in the latter clause did he say “it is to be sold.” It follows that when he said in the first clause, “and they prohibited it,” the tanna was precise in his wording and prohibited it even in benefit.

A refutation of Rava;

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

And we conclude:

“Refutation” .

The Gemara relates another incident.

Rabbi Yohanan 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 Yohanan and Rabbi Yosei said to the man:

“Come, give us to drink,”

come and give us to drink; fill our cups!

After he poured into the cup,

after he filled their cups,

“the matter became revealed,”

the matter became known,

“that he was a gentile!”

One,

one of these amoraim,

“prohibited”

the wine

“even in benefit. And one

whereas

“one,”

the second amora,

“permitted it,”

permitted it

“even for drinking.”

And the Gemara explains their opinions:

Rabbi Joshua

ben Levi said: “The one who prohibited, prohibited properly, and the one who permitted, permitted properly.”