Avodah Zarah 60b — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara relates:

that barrel,

there was an incident involving a barrel that

split,

was cracked

along its length,

from above downward, and was about to come apart and fall, half to this side and half to the other side.

That gentile hurried,

that gentile hastened,

embraced it,

between his arms so that the wine would not spill to waste, and held it until they brought a vessel into which to empty the wine—

He permitted it,

permitted it

Rafram bar Pappa, and some say

or

Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua permitted it, for sale to gentiles,

to sell it to the gentile, because the gentile did not shake the wine. And although he brought the halves of the barrel close to one another, and it turns out that he was touching the wine through the barrel, nevertheless it is permitted. And this is not similar to one who touches with a reed [see the following Mishna], because one who touches with a reed shakes the wine with the reed, whereas here he did not shake it at all.

And the Gemara adds:

And these words,

these words are stated, for example,

when it split along its length,

from above downward,

but

if it split

across its width,

across the width of the barrel,

it is permitted even for drinking.

What is the reason?—

Since the two parts of the barrel do not come apart from one another, and its upper half rests upon the lower one, even though a little wine flows from it. It follows that the gentile does not “hold” the wine and does not touch it through another object; rather, he merely weighs down its upper part, and by pressing it

he performs the act of a brick,

as though he had weighed down the barrel with a brick. And the gentile did nothing more than a brick.

And the Gemara relates another incident.

That gentile,

that gentile

who was found,

they found him

standing in a winepress,

which was in an Israelite’s winepress, empty of grapes and wine.

And since it was wet from the treading of grapes [“moist enough to make something else wet”], there is concern that perhaps the gentile touched it and rendered the wine forbidden, and the wine would be absorbed into the winepress and render the next treading forbidden .

And when this question was brought before Rav Ashi, he taught the questioners how to render the winepress fit.

Rav Ashi said: If there is enough moisture to make something else wet,

if the wine remaining in the winepress was wet in an amount such that it could make another object wet,

it requires rinsing,

with water,

and it requires wiping

with ashes, water, and ashes [explained in the following chapter, 72b–73a].

But if not,

if the wine does not have the measure of moisture sufficient to make something else wet, but is merely moist,

rinsing alone is sufficient for it,

rinsing is enough .

Mishna:

Our Mishna discusses a gentile who was alone with wine, in an Israelite’s winepress—whether there is concern that perhaps he touched the wine and poured libation to it.

A gentile who was found,

whom they found

standing beside a pit of wine—

If he has,

the gentile has,

a loan secured by it,

from the Israelite, meaning that the Israelite owes him money,

it is forbidden

the wine , because the gentile is not afraid to touch it, since he reasons that if the Israelite catches him as a thief and accuses him concerning his touching the wine, he will say to him that he should give it to him in exchange for his debt.

And if

he does not have a loan secured by it—

it is permitted,

because the gentile is afraid to touch it, lest he be caught as a thief.

The Mishna returns to the law of a gentile’s touching wine . And the Mishna explains the law of wine touched by a gentile without the intention of pouring libation, or not in the manner of pouring libation.

If he fell,

the gentile

into the pit,

of wine,

and came up,

from there, and had no intention at all of touching it in his descent [and the Gemara will explain why he does not render it forbidden by his ascent], or if

he measured it,

the gentile

with a reed,

which he inserted into the wine in order to know its quantity. Although he intends [to deal with] the wine, nevertheless he does not intend to pour libation to it, but to measure it, and he does not touch it ממש with his hands —

And likewise if

he struck away the hornet with a reed,

a hornet that fell into the wine, and the gentile removed it with the reed—

or he was beating upon the surface of a fermenting barrel,

wine that had soured and raised foam, and the gentile struck it with his hand to lower the foam. Although he touched it ממש with his hands, nevertheless this is not the manner of pouring libation—

in all these cases there was an incident, and they said,

the Sages:

It shall be sold,

and it is not forbidden for benefit.

And Rabbi Shimon permits,

even for drinking.

He took the barrel and threw it in his anger

into the pit. This was an incident

[another version:

in Beit She’an]

and they declared it fit,

the wine even for drinking.

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna: A gentile who was found standing beside a pit of wine—if he has a loan secured by it, it is forbidden.

Shmuel said: And it,

when are these words stated?

For example, when he has a loan secured by that wine,

for the Israelite made the wine an apotiki for him, so that if he does not repay his debt, he will collect the wine itself. Therefore it is forbidden, because the gentile relies upon the wine, and is not afraid of it, and touches it. But if he does not have a loan secured by that wine, although he has a loan against the Israelite, the wine is permitted even for drinking, since the gentile does not touch it out of fear that he may be caught as a thief.

Rav Ashi said: The Mishna,

the following Mishna,

also demonstrates precisely,

is precise in accordance with Shmuel’s words.

As we learned,

an Israelite

who renders a gentile’s wine fit,

makes the gentile’s wine in the gentile’s winepress in a permitted manner, in order to sell it to an Israelite, and does not give money to the gentile until after he sells the wine,

and places it in his domain,

and leaves the wine with the gentile —

and the latter,

the gentile,

writes for him, “I have received money from you”,

meaning, “I am considered as though I received money from you,” and he does not withhold the wine on account of the debt of money, and you may take out the wine whenever you wish—

it is permitted.

But,

when he does not write this for him,

and if the Israelite wishes to take it out and there is no

gentile

who lets him do so until he gives him his money—

this was an incident in Beit She’an, and the Sages forbade it,

since he has a loan secured by that wine, the gentile does with it whatever he wishes.

And Rav Ashi infers:

The reason,

the reason that they forbade it is because

he does not let him; but if he lets him,

whereas if he lets him take out the wine—

it is permitted,

the wine is permitted, even though the Israelite owes him money for the winepress and for the wine; nevertheless, since he did not make the wine collateral for his debt, it is permitted .

Infer from it,

it follows in accordance with Shmuel’s words, who says:

we require a loan secured by that wine,

in order to forbid it.

And we conclude:

Infer from it.

We learned in our Mishna:

He fell into the pit and came up… it shall be sold.

The Gemara explains why we are not concerned that he poured libation to it upon his ascent.

Rav Pappa said: They taught this only,

in the Mishna, that the wine is permitted,

when he came up dead ,

but

if he

came up alive—

it is forbidden.

What is the reason?

Rav Pappa said: Because it appears to him,

it appears to the gentile

like the day of their festival,

and he goes and gives thanks to idolatry for the miracle of his rescue, and presumably pours libation upon his ascent—and it is forbidden for benefit.

We learned in our Mishna:

He measured it with a reed… in all these cases there was an incident and they said, “It shall be sold.” And Rabbi Shimon permits.

Rav Adda bar Ahava said: May blessings rest upon Rabbi Shimon’s head! When he permits,

he permits even for drinking, and when he forbids,

he forbids even for benefit.

And the Gemara rules the halakha:

Rav Hiyya son of Abba bar Nahmani said, Rav Hisda said in the name of Rav, and some say,

there is one who transmitted this report:

Rav Hisda said in the name of Zeiri: The halakha is according to Rabbi Shimon,

who permits a gentile’s touching wine without intention, or not in the manner of pouring libation.

There are those who say: Rav Hisda said: Abba bar Hanan said to me: Thus said Zeiri: The halakha is according to Rabbi Shimon.

And the Gemara concludes:

And the halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon.

We learned in our Mishna:

He took a barrel and threw it

[in his anger]

into the pit—

this was an incident and they declared it fit.

Rav Ashi comes to define a gentile’s contact with wine: what is called direct contact that forbids the wine, and what is not called contact; and he defines this according to what is called contact with regard to a person afflicted with a flux, as will be explained.

Rav Ashi does not intend to compare completely the laws of a gentile’s touching wine to the laws of a person afflicted with a flux. Therefore, a gentile who moves wine, for example, carrying it on his shoulders, does not forbid it, even though a person afflicted with a flux who moves a person or vessels renders them impure [and the seat of a person afflicted with a flux renders one impure, whereas a gentile who sat upon a wine barrel does not forbid the wine ]. Rather, the principal novelty of his statement concerns when he “threw,” meaning: just as a person afflicted with a flux who throws an object at a person or vessels does not render them impure, so too a gentile who throws a stone or anything into wine does not forbid it.

Rav Ashi said: Everything that,

every contact that

with a person afflicted with a flux is impure,

for example, if he touched with his hand or with a reed,

with a gentile

he

makes wine into libation wine.

Everything that with a person afflicted with a flux is pure,

for example, if he threw an object at a person or vessels,

with a gentile he does not make wine into libation wine.

And we object:

Rav Huna raised an objection [

another version:

Ravina]

to Rav Ashi,

from our Mishna. For we learned in it:

He took the barrel and threw it in his anger into the pit; this was an incident in Beit She’an and they declared it fit.

And Rav Huna infers: If he threw it

in his anger,

without the intention of pouring libation, but rather to calm his anger,

no,

indeed they declared the wine fit. But if he threw it

not in his anger, no,

they did not declare the wine fit; rather, although he did not touch the wine in the pit, he forbade it. And this is difficult for Rav Ashi, for a person afflicted with a flux who throws an object into a vessel does not render it impure!