Avodah Zarah 69a (סט.) — the Talmud in English

The Gemara raises a dilemma:

They raised a dilemma before them:

a mouse [unclear: final character in the source is unclear]

fell into vinegar [

into vinegar]

what is the ruling?

Is there concern that the mouse imparts a beneficial taste to the vinegar, or perhaps the taste of the vinegar is too sharp, and the mouse does not improve it?

Rav Hillel said to Rav Ashi: There was an incident in the house of Rav Kahana [

this is what happened in the house of Rav Kahana],

and Rav Kahana prohibited

the vinegar.

He said to him:

No proof can be brought from there, since

that one was completely disintegrated. [

The mouse crumbled into the vinegar], and therefore Rav Kahana prohibited it, lest one drink a piece of the mouse together with the vinegar. Ravina considered measuring it according to a ratio of one hundred plus one; that is, if there were one hundred parts of vinegar corresponding to the mouse, it would be permitted.

He said: It is no less than teruma

that became mixed with non-sacred produce, which is permitted if there are one hundred parts of non-sacred produce corresponding to it.

As we learned

in tractate Terumot (chapter 4, Mishna 7

: “Teruma

that became mixed with non-sacred produce,

rises [

that is, it is permitted]

when

there is one part

of

teruma,

and

corresponding to it

one hundred

parts of non-sacred produce.”

Rav Tahlifa bar Giza said to Ravina:

From where do you derive that “a mouse in vinegar” should be compared to a dry mixture of teruma with non-sacred produce,

perhaps it is like teruma spices

that fell

into a pot, whose taste is not nullified

by one hundred, but remains prohibited as long as it imparts taste to the pot; likewise, perhaps the mouse imparts taste to the vinegar even if there are one hundred parts corresponding to it?

Rav Ahai measured

a mouse that fell

into vinegar [

into vinegar]

at fifty [

if there are fifty parts corresponding to it, it is permitted],

and held that it does not improve it to such an extent; therefore, even sixty parts corresponding to it are not required.

Rav Shmuel, son of Rav Ika, measured

a mouse that fell

into beer at sixty.

And the halakha is: both this and that

whether it fell into vinegar or into beer, is nullified

in sixty [

in sixty].

And likewise all prohibitions of the Torah,

if one species became mixed with a different species, and imparted a beneficial taste, it is nullified in sixty.:

Introduction

Wine belonging to a Jew that a gentile touched, even though he did not pour it as a libation to an object of idolatry, was prohibited by the Sages in order to distance a person from transgression. (See above, 58b).

Our Mishna discusses a Jew who left a gentile standing beside his wine without supervision: From what point onward must he be concerned that perhaps the gentile touched the wine?

The Mishna discusses several types of cases: A. A gentile transporting wine jars from one place to another, who is permitted to touch the barrels themselves but is not permitted to open them: Are we concerned that he opened them?

B. One who leaves his wine in a wagon or on a ship, where the gentile is not permitted to touch the barrels, but there is concern that perhaps he will sail away or move with the wine to a place where he cannot be seen and touch the wine.

C. One who leaves a gentile in his shop: Are we concerned that perhaps he will close the door and touch the wine?

D. A gentile who eats with the Jew in his home, and the Jew gives him wine from his wine, where there is concern that perhaps he also touched other wine found in the house.

Mishna:

a.

A gentile who was transporting wine jars with a Jew from one place to another,

and left the gentile alone with the barrel for some time,

if the wine was

under

the presumption that it was being guarded,

meaning that the gentile knew that the Jew was guarding the wine so that he would not touch it,

it is permitted.

Since he did not inform the gentile that he intended to distance himself from there, even if he distanced himself by a mil, he need not be concerned that the gentile might open the barrel in his absence, since the gentile is afraid to act, lest the Jew return at any moment.

However,

if he informed him that he was sailing away [

that he intended to distance himself from him],

and the gentile remained with the barrel without supervision for the amount of time sufficient

to puncture [

to make a hole in the seal of the barrel]

and seal it

the hole,

and for it to dry [

so that the sealing would dry and not be discernible to the eye], the wine is prohibited.

But if he did not remain away for this amount of time, the wine is permitted.

This is the opinion of the first tanna.

However,

Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel

disagrees with the first tanna and

says

that there is no concern that he might puncture the seal of the barrel and reseal the hole, since the sealing of the hole is discernible, and the gentile is afraid that the Jew will discover that he punctured the barrel.

Therefore, the wine should be prohibited only if he left the gentile alone for an extended period, long enough

for the gentile to open

the barrel

completely

and

seal it [

and close it with a new seal]

and for the seal to dry [

so that it would dry until it appeared as it had originally].

b.

One who leaves

his wine in a wagon or on a ship

of a gentile

, and the Jew went away

the Jew

by a shortcut,

meaning that he entered the town by a short route, even though he

entered the town and bathed, it is permitted.

Since he did not inform the gentile that he intended to remain in the town and bathe, we are not concerned that he might touch the wine, since the gentile fears that the owner may return at any moment.

However,

if they informed him that he was going away

[that he intended to go into the city],

and the gentile remained with the barrel without supervision for the amount of time sufficient

to open the barrel’s seal, reseal it, and allow the seal to dry,

the wine is forbidden.

As above.

Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says:

If he remained for sufficient time

to open the barrel, seal it, and allow the seal to dry,

the wine is forbidden. But if he remained for less than this amount of time, it is permitted. As stated above.

3.

One who leaves a gentile in a shop

with wine jugs in it,

even though

the Jew is not present in his shop the entire time, but

comes

and

goes in and out,

the wine is

permitted.

This is because the gentile is afraid to touch the wine, lest the Jew return at any moment.

But if they informed him that he was going away,

and the gentile remained with the barrel without supervision for the amount of time sufficient

to open the barrel’s seal, reseal it, and allow the seal to dry,

the wine is forbidden.

As above.

Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says:

If he remained for sufficient time

to open the barrel, seal it, and allow the seal to dry,

the wine is forbidden. But if he remained for less than this amount of time, it is permitted. As stated above.

4.

If he was eating with him at the table, and he left

the Jew

jugs

[a wine jug]

on the table, and a jug on the dulbeki

[a sideboard used for storing food]

, and left him

the gentile alone

and went out.

What is on the table is forbidden.

This is because it is customary for those dining to take wine themselves from the jug placed on the table, and there is concern that the gentile may have touched it.

However, the jug

on the dulbeki is permitted.

This is because it is not customary for those dining to take food from what is placed on the counter.

But if he told him

the Jew told the gentile:

“Pour for yourself and drink,”

and left him alone in the house and went out,

even

the jug

on the dulbeki is forbidden.

This is because, having given him permission to pour, the gentile considers it permissible to pour from any jug found in the room.

Therefore, all

barrels

of wine

that were open

in that room

, are forbidden.

Perhaps the gentile touched them.

But if there were wine barrels there that were

sealed, they are permitted.

And if he remained there for

the amount of time required to open, seal, and allow the seal to dry,

they are forbidden. The anonymous ruling of our Mishna follows the view of Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel cited above, whose opinion is the halakha.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: “If it was presumed to be under supervision, it is permitted.”

The Gemara explains:

What are the circumstances of ‘presumed to be under supervision’?

An introduction to the beraita:

We learned in tractate Hagiga (chapter 2, Mishna 7): “The garments of an am ha-aretz are a source of impurity conveying impurity by lying for those who observe the laws of ritual purity.” That is, the Sages decreed ritual impurity upon ammei ha-aretz: if they touched the foods or vessels of the “separatists”—that is, of one who is careful to observe the laws of ritual impurity and to eat non-sacred food in a state of purity—those items become impure.

The following beraita discusses one who entrusted his ritually pure items to an am ha-aretz: From when must he be concerned that the latter touched them and rendered them impure?

As it was taught

in a beraita

, if his donkey drivers and laborers

were ammei ha-aretz,

carrying

ritually

pure items,

such as wine produced in a state of purity and placed in earthenware vessels, and they do not touch the wine itself, but only the outer surface of the vessel. An earthenware vessel does not become impure through its exterior.

Even if he went away

[distanced himself from them]

more than a mil, his ritually pure items remain pure.

There is no concern that they may have touched the inside of the vessel and thereby rendered the wine impure.

But if he said to them, “Go, and I will come after you,” as soon as

they disappeared from his sight,

there is concern that they touched the wine, and

his ritually pure items are impure.

This concludes the beraita.

The Gemara explains:

What is the difference between the first clause and the latter clause?

That is, why in the first clause is there no concern that they may have touched the ritually pure items?

Rav Yitzhak said,

in

the first clause,

his ritually pure items remain pure because it is referring

to one who purified his donkey drivers and laborers for this purpose.

That is, he immersed his laborers before they touched the ritually pure items. Therefore, their contact is pure.

The Gemara raises an objection:

If so, in the latter clause as well?

Why in the latter clause do his ritually pure items become impure? The Gemara answers: Because

an am ha-aretz is not careful regarding the contact of another am ha-aretz,

there is concern that another am ha-aretz who happened to encounter them along the way may have touched them.

The Gemara raises an objection:

If so, even

in

the first clause as well,

since he distanced himself from them,

should we say so?

Perhaps another am ha-aretz touched them?