Avodah Zarah 65b — the Talmud in English

And behold,

the father of Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

would pour wine for gentiles, then cross the ferry with them, and they would give him wine barrels as payment. [(

Rav Ika, Rav Aḥa’s father, sold wine to gentiles and poured it into zikei, meaning leather wineskins that they brought with them. He would ferry them across the river, and they would return to him the wine barrels they had purchased from him as payment for ferrying them across the river.)]

They came and told Abaye.

They asked Abaye whether he was permitted to benefit from the payment for the wine.

He said to them: When he exerted himself,

when he exerted himself to pour the wine,

he exerted himself in a permitted activity.

For the wine had not yet become forbidden until it reached the bottom of the gentile’s wineskin. Therefore, the payment he received for the wine was permitted for benefit.

They said to him:

But he wants it to remain intact, so that the wineskins will not burst!

That is, Rav Ika wants the wine to remain intact so that the wineskins will not burst, the barrels will not be needed, and the gentiles will not give them to him.

He said to them: In a case

where he stipulated with them,

where he stipulated that they would give him the barrels even if the wineskins burst, his payment is permitted. For he does not want the wine to remain intact.

Alternatively,

in a case

where they brought replacement vessels with them,

where they brought replacement vessels in case the wineskins burst, his payment is permitted.

They said to him:

But he ferries them across the river, and he exerts himself in a forbidden activity!

When he ferried them across the river, he exerted himself with wine of idolatrous libation; why, then, is his payment permitted?

He said to them: Rav Ika was the “head of the river,” meaning that he was responsible for the ferries on the river, and

it

refers to a situation in which he

spoke to the ferryman beforehand. [(

He told the ferryman in advance to transport his wine purchasers free of charge.)]

Alternatively, they were marked with knots, [(

He gave the ferryman a sign by which he could recognize them and transport them free of charge.)] and he did not exert himself on their behalf at all. Therefore, his payment is permitted.

Introduction

Our Mishna discusses the law of wine of idolatrous libation that imparts flavor to a permitted substance: in which cases it renders the substance forbidden for benefit and in which cases it does not become forbidden.

The laws governing the prohibition resulting from imparted flavor are divided into four categories:

a.

A flavor that improves the food from beginning to end—for example, the flavor of wine in a meat dish. This flavor certainly renders the food forbidden.

b.

A flavor that detracts from the food from beginning to end—for example, the fat of meat, which detracts from the flavor of honey. This flavor is permitted for benefit even from the outset.

c.

A flavor that detracts at first and improves later—for example, the flavor of honey in wine. At first the honey spoils the wine, but after some time it adds a superior aroma and flavor to the wine.

d.

A flavor that improves at first and detracts later—for example, the flavor of the fat of meat in butter. In the last two categories, the substances are forbidden as a matter of uncertainty.

Our Mishna explains several cases involving flavor imparted by wine of idolatrous libation.

Mishna:

If wine of idolatrous libation fell onto grapes

that are attached to a cluster,

, they must be rinsed

with water,

and they are permitted

to eat.

This is because they absorbed nothing.

But if they were

the grapes

split open,

there is concern that they absorbed some of the wine, and they are

forbidden

for benefit.

If it fell onto figs or onto dates, if there is enough of it to impart flavor

for improvement,

it is forbidden.

And there was an incident involving Beitossus ben Zonen, who brought dried figs

on a ship,

[dried figs]

and a barrel of wine of idolatrous libation broke and fell onto them. He asked the Sages, and they permitted them.

and a barrel of yayin nesekh broke and spilled upon them, and he asked the Sages, and they permitted them.

The Gemara will explain that the Sages permitted them because the wine imparted a detrimental flavor. Our Mishna is incomplete, and this is what it teaches: “But if it imparts a detrimental flavor, it is permitted.” Proof is brought from the incident involving Beitossus ben Zonen, whose dried figs the Sages permitted because the wine imparted a detrimental flavor.

This is the general rule: Whenever the forbidden substance imparts a beneficial flavor,

that is, whenever the forbidden substance improves the flavor of the substance onto which it fell, so that a person who eats it benefits from the forbidden substance,

it is forbidden.

And

whenever the forbidden substance does not impart a beneficial flavor,

that is, when the forbidden substance imparts a detrimental flavor to the substance onto which it fell, so that there is no benefit from it,

it is permitted.

For one does not benefit from the forbidden substance.

For example,

vinegar

of wine of idolatrous libation

that fell onto groats

and imparted a detrimental flavor to them: The groats are permitted.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: “If it fell onto figs or onto dates, if there is enough of it to impart flavor, it is forbidden. And there was an incident involving Beitossus ben Zonen…and he asked the Sages, and they permitted them.”

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

Does the incident contradict the preceding statement?!

That is, does someone bring proof that contradicts his own words?!

For at first we learned: “If there is enough of it to impart flavor, they are forbidden,” so how could the Mishna bring proof from Beitossus ben Zonen, whose dried figs the Sages permitted?

The Gemara answers: Our Mishna

is missing part of its text,

and this is what it teaches: “If it imparts a detrimental flavor, it is permitted. And there was also an incident involving Beitossus ben Zonen, who was bringing dried figs on a ship, and a barrel of wine of idolatrous libation broke and fell onto them, and the incident came before the Sages, and they permitted them.”

Because the wine imparted a detrimental flavor.

The Gemara brings an incident from which one can derive the law in the cases mentioned in our Mishna:

There was an incident involving

a certain heap of wheat

[a pile of wheat]

, onto which a barrel of wine of idolatrous libation fell,

in a manner that the wine was sufficient to impart flavor to the wheat.

Rava permitted

the wheat

to be sold

to

gentiles.

They raised an objection from a source

[he challenged]

Rabba bar Livai to Rava:

We learned in a beraita,

a garment

of wool

in which

a single thread of linen was lost, and it is

a garment containing diverse kinds

and forbidden to wear.

It may not be sold to a gentile, lest the gentile later sell it to a Jew.

He may not make it into a saddlecloth for a donkey,

lest he later forget and take it from there and sew it into one of his garments.

But he may make it into shrouds for a corpse for whom there is no one to bury it.

There is no concern that someone will take it from the corpse’s shrouds, since a dead person’s garments are forbidden for benefit. As for the corpse itself, the commandments do not apply to it, as it is written (Psalms 88:6): “Among the dead, free,” and we derive (Nidda 61b): “Once a person dies, he becomes free of the commandments.”

This concludes the beraita.

Rabba bar Livai infers:

For what reason may it not

be sold to a gentile?

Because we are concerned

that perhaps he will come to sell it

[perhaps he will come to sell it]

to a Jew.

If so, how could Rava permit selling this wheat to a gentile without being concerned

here too,

that perhaps he will

come to sell it to a Jew?

He reconsidered,

and because of this difficulty Rava retracted his original ruling and

permitted them to grind it, bake it, and sell it to gentiles outside the presence of Jews. [(

He permitted grinding the wheat, baking bread from it, and selling it to a gentile outside the presence of Jews.)] There is no longer concern that the gentile will later sell the bread to a Jew, since gentile bread is forbidden and Jews will not purchase it from him.

In any event, it is explained that if idolatrous wine fell upon wheat, it is forbidden for a Jew to use it.

And this is difficult: for in our Mishna

we learned: If idolatrous wine fell upon grapes, one must rinse them, and they are permitted.

And if they were split, they are forbidden.

It follows: only if they were

split, yes,

then they were rendered forbidden by the wine. But grapes

that are not split, no,

were not rendered forbidden.

If so, why was the wheat that was not split rendered forbidden by the wine?

Rav Pappa said: I distinguish whea

t,

since, on account of their fissure, they are considered as split

(since there is a crack alongside them, they are considered as split), and they are rendered forbidden by the wine.