Avodah Zarah 60b (ס:) — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara relates:

There was this barrel:

There was an incident involving a barrel

that split,

that cracked

along its length,

from top to bottom, and was about to come apart and fall, with half moving to one side and half to the other.

A certain gentile hurried,

that gentile hastened,

embraced it,

holding it between his arms so that the wine would not spill and be lost, and he held it until they brought a vessel into which to drain the wine—

Rabbi Rafram bar Pappa permitted it,

he permitted

it—or, if you wish,

it was permitted by

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, to sell it to gentiles,

to sell it to a gentile, because the gentile had not shaken the wine. Although he brought the two halves of the barrel close to one another, and thus touched the wine through the barrel, it is nevertheless permitted. This is not comparable to touching it with a cane [see the following Mishna], because one who touches it with a cane shakes the wine with the cane, whereas here he did not shake it at all.

And the Gemara adds:

And these matters

apply specifically, for example,

when it split along its length,

from top to bottom,

but

if it split

across its width,

across the breadth of the barrel,

it is permitted even for drinking.

What is the reason? —

Since the two parts of the barrel do not separate from one another, and its upper half rests on the lower half, even though a small amount of wine is flowing from it, it follows that the gentile is not “holding” the wine and is not touching it through another object. Rather, he is merely weighing down its upper part, and by pressing it he

performs the act of a brick,

as though the barrel had been weighed down with a brick. The gentile did nothing more than a brick would have done.

The Gemara relates another incident.

There was this gentile,

that gentile

who was found,

they found him

standing in the winepress,

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

And since it was wet with the liquid left from treading grapes [“a liquid capable of wetting another object”], there was concern that the gentile might have touched it, thereby rendering the wine forbidden, and that the wine would be absorbed into the winepress and render the next treading forbidden .

When this question was brought before Rav Ashi, he taught the questioners how to kasher the winepress.

Rav Ashi said: If there is liquid capable of wetting another object,

if the wine remaining in the winepress was wet in an amount sufficient to wet another object,

it requires rinsing,

with water,

and it requires wiping

with water and ash and ash [explained in the following chapter, 72b–75a].

But if not,

if the wine does not have the measure of liquid capable of wetting another object, but is merely wet,

mere rinsing is sufficient for it,

it is enough to rinse it .

Mishna:

Our Mishna discusses a gentile who was alone with wine in an Israelite’s winepress: Is there concern that he may have touched the wine and poured a libation?

A gentile who was found

they found him

standing beside a pit of wine—

If he has

the gentile

a creditor’s claim against him,

against the Israelite—that is, the Israelite owes him money—

the wine is forbidden

the wine , because the gentile is not afraid to touch it. He reasons that if the Israelite catches him as a thief and accuses him of touching the wine, he will tell him to give it to him in repayment of his debt.

And

if he has no creditor’s claim against him—

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 . The Mishna explains the law of wine touched by a gentile without the intention of pouring a libation, or not in the manner of pouring a libation.

If

the gentile

fell into the pit

of wine

and came out,

from there, and had no intention at all of touching the wine when he descended [and the Gemara will explain why he does not render it forbidden when he ascends], or if

he measured it,

the gentile

with a cane,

which he inserted into the wine to determine its quantity. Although he intends to interact with the wine, he nevertheless does not intend to pour a libation, but only to measure it, and he does not touch it directly with his hands —

And likewise, if

he knocked a wasp away with a cane,

a wasp that fell into the wine, and the gentile removed it with the cane—

or if he was tapping on the surface of a boiling barrel,

wine that had fermented and produced foam, and the gentile struck it with his hand to remove the foam. Although he actually touched it with his hands, this is nevertheless not a customary manner of pouring a 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 it,

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 creditor’s claim against him, it is forbidden.

Shmuel said: And this

when does this statement apply?

For example, when he has a creditor’s claim against that wine,

when the Israelite designated the wine as an apotiki for him, meaning that if he does not repay his debt, the gentile will collect the wine itself. Therefore, it is forbidden, because the gentile relies on the wine and is not afraid of it, and he touches it. But if he does not have a creditor’s claim against that wine, although he has a creditor’s claim against the Israelite, the wine is permitted even for drinking, since the gentile does not touch it, fearing that he may be caught as a thief.

Rav Ashi said: The following Mishna

the next Mishna

also proves this precisely,

it is precise in accordance with Shmuel’s statement.

As we learned:

An Israelite

who purifies the wine of a gentile,

who produces the gentile’s wine in the gentile’s winepress in a manner that renders it fit, in order to sell it to an Israelite, and does not give the gentile money until after he sells the wine,

and leaves it in his domain,

leaving 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 have received money from you, and I am not withholding the wine on account of the monetary debt; you may remove the wine whenever you wish—

it is permitted.

But

when he does not write this for him,

and if the Israelite wishes to remove it and

the gentile

does not let 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 creditor’s claim against that wine, the gentile may do with it as he wishes.

Rav Ashi infers:

The reason

the reason they forbade it is

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

whereas if he lets him remove the wine—

it is permitted,

the wine is permitted, even though the Israelite owes him money for the winepress and the wine. Nevertheless, since he did not lien the wine against his debt, it is permitted .

Infer from this

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

we require a creditor’s claim against that wine,

in order to render it forbidden.

And we conclude:

Infer from this.

We learned in our Mishna:

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

The Gemara explains why there is no concern that he poured a libation when he came out.

Rav Pappa said: They taught

in the Mishna that the wine is permitted

only when he came out dead ,

but

if he

came out alive—

it is forbidden.

What is the reason?

Rav Pappa said: Because it seems to him,

the gentile,

like his festival,

and he goes and gives thanks to idolatry for the miracle of his rescue, and presumably pours a libation when he comes out—and it is forbidden for benefit.

We learned in our Mishna:

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

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

he permits even for drinking; and when he forbids,

he forbids even for benefit.

And the Gemara rules:

Rav Hiyya, son of Abba bar Naḥmani, said that Rav Ḥisda said that Rav said—and some say,

there is one who transmitted this report

that Rav Ḥisda said that Ze’iri said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon,

who permits a gentile’s touching wine when it is unintentional or not in the manner of pouring a libation.

There are those who say: Rav Ḥisda said: Abba bar Ḥanan said to me: Ze’iri said as follows: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon.

And the Gemara concludes:

The halakha is not in accordance with 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 considered direct contact that renders the wine forbidden, and what is not considered contact. He defines it according to what is called contact with regard to a zav, as will be explained.

Rav Ashi does not intend to equate completely the laws of a gentile’s touching wine with the laws of a zav. Therefore, a gentile who moves wine, for example, by carrying it on his shoulders, does not render it forbidden, even though a zav who moves a person or vessels renders them impure [and the seat of a zav also contracts impurity, whereas a gentile who sits on a barrel of wine does not render the wine forbidden ]. Rather, his essential innovation concerns when he “throws”: Just as a zav who throws an object onto a person or vessels does not render them impure, so too a gentile who throws a stone or any object into wine does not render it forbidden.

Rav Ashi said: Any

contact that

renders a zav impure,

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

in the case of a gentile

he

renders wine yayin nesekh.

Anything that renders a zav pure,

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

in the case of a gentile he does not render wine yayin nesekh.

And we raise an objection:

Rav Huna challenged

[another version:

Ravina]

Rav Ashi

from our Mishna, as 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.”

Rav Huna infers: If he threw it

in his anger,

without intending to pour a libation, but only to calm his anger,

then

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 rendered it forbidden. This is difficult for Rav Ashi, for a zav who throws an object into a vessel does not render it impure!