Avodah Zarah 69a — the Talmud in English

The Gemara is uncertain:

It was asked of them:

a mouse

fell into vinegar [into vinegar]

[into vinegar]

what is the law?

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

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

There is no proof to bring from there, for

that one became completely disintegrated. [The mouse crumbled into the vinegar], and therefore Rav Kahana prohibited it, lest he drink a piece of the mouse together with the vinegar.

Ravina considered measuring it at one hundred and one; that is, if there are one hundred parts of vinegar against the mouse, it is permitted.

He said: It is no worse than teruma

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

As we learned

in tractate Terumot (chapter 4, Mishna 7

, “Teruma

that became mixed with non-sacred produce

rises [that is, is permitted]

[that is, it becomes permitted]

in

a case where there is

one

part of teruma

and

opposite it

one hundred

parts of non-sacred produce.”

Rav Tahlifa bar Giza said to Ravina:

From where do you have [grounds] to compare “a mouse in vinegar” to a dry-with-dry mixture of teruma,

perhaps it is like teruma spices

that fell

into a pot, whose taste is not nullified

by one hundred and one; rather, as long as they impart taste into the pot, it is prohibited—and likewise the mouse, perhaps it imparts taste into the vinegar even if there are one hundred against it?

Rav Ahai measured

to permit a mouse that fell

into vinegar [into vinegar]

[into vinegar]

with fifty [if there are fifty against it, it is permitted],

[if there are fifty parts against it, it is permitted],

and he reasoned that it does not improve it so much, and therefore even sixty against it is not needed.

Rav Shmuel, son of Rav Ika, measured

to permit a mouse that fell

into beer, with sixty.

And the halakha is: both this and that

whether it fell into vinegar or whether it fell into beer, is nullified

with sixty [with sixty].

[by sixty parts].

And likewise all prohibitions in the Torah,

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

Introduction

Wine belonging to an Israelite that a gentile touched—even though he did not pour it as a libation for idolatry—the Sages decreed it forbidden, in order to distance a person from transgression. (See above, 58b

.) Our Mishna discusses an Israelite who left a gentile standing beside his wine without supervision: from what point must he be concerned lest the gentile touched the wine?

The Mishna discusses several types of cases: a. A gentile transporting wine-jars from one place to another, who has permission to touch the barrels themselves but does not have permission 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 has no permission to touch the barrels, but there is, on the other hand, concern lest he sail away or distance himself 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 lest he close the door and touch the wine?

d. A gentile who dines with the Israelite in his house, and the Israelite gave him wine from his wine: is there concern lest he also touched other wine present in the house?

Mishna:

a.

A gentile who was transporting wine-jars together with an Israelite from place to place,

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

if

the wine was

presumed to be guarded,

that is, the gentile knows that the Israelite is watching the wine so that he should not touch it,

it is permitted.

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

But

if he informed him that he was sailing away [that he intended to distance himself from him],

[that he intended to move away from him],

and the gentile remained with the barrel without supervision for a period sufficient

to make an opening [to make a hole in the seal of the barrel]

[to make a hole in the seal of the barrel]

and seal it

the hole,

and for it to harden [and for the seal to dry and not be recognizable to the eye], the wine is prohibited.

[so that the seal would dry and the repair would not be visible]—the wine is prohibited.

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

This is the view of the first tanna.

But

Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel

disagrees with the first tanna and

says

that there is no concern lest he make a hole in the seal of the barrel and seal the hole, since the sealing of the hole is visible, and the gentile is afraid that the Israelite will discover that he made a hole in the barrel.

Therefore, the wine is not to be prohibited unless he left the gentile alone for a long time, for a period sufficient

for the gentile to open

the

barrel

completely,

and seal it [and close it with a new seal]

[and close it with a new seal]

and for it to harden [and for it to dry until it appears as it was at first].

[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

belonging to a gentile

, and he went away

the Israelite

by a shortcut,

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

he entered the province and bathed, it is permitted.

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

But

if they informed him that he was going away [

that his intention was to go to the city],

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

to make a breach, close it, and plaster it

the wine is forbidden.

As above.

Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says:

If he remained for the amount of time sufficient

to open the barrel, plug it, and plaster it

the wine is forbidden. But for less than this measure, it is permitted. As above.

C.

One who leaves a gentile in a shop

and there were wine jugs in it,

even though

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

goes

out

and comes in,

the wine is

permitted.

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

And 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 make a breach, close it, and plaster it

the wine is forbidden.

As above.

Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says:

If he remained for the amount of time sufficient

to open the barrel, plug it, and plaster it

the wine is forbidden. But for less than this measure, it is permitted. As above.

D.

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

the Jew

jugs

[a wine jug]

on the table, and a jug on the dolveki

[a sideboard used for storing foodstuffs]

, and left him

the Israelite left the gentile alone

and went out.

What is on the table is forbidden.

Since it is the way of those eating to take wine themselves from the jug placed on the table. And there is concern lest the gentile touched it.

But the jug

that is on the dolveki is permitted.

Since it is not the way of those eating to take from the food placed on the counter.

And if he said to him

the Jew to the gentile:

“Pour and drink,”

and left him alone in the house and went out,

even

the jug

that is on the dolveki is forbidden.

Since he gave him permission to pour, the gentile considers it permitted for himself to pour from every jug found in the room.

Therefore, all

barrels

of wine that were

open

in that room

, are forbidden.

Lest the gentile touched them.

But if there were wine barrels there that were

closed, they are permitted.

And if he remained there for

the amount of time required to open, plug, and plaster it,

they are forbidden. The anonymous Mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel mentioned above, whose ruling 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”?

Introduction to the words of the beraita:

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

The following beraita discusses one who placed his pure items in the hands of an am ha-aretz: From when does he have to be concerned lest he touched them and rendered them impure?

As it is taught

in a beraita

, behold, if his donkey-drivers and laborers

were ammei ha-aretz,

carrying

pure

items,

such as wine produced in purity, placed in earthenware vessels, and they do not touch the wine itself, but only the outside of the vessel. And an earthenware vessel does not convey impurity from its outside.

Even if he went away

[distanced himself]

from them more than a mil, his pure items remain pure.

And we are not concerned lest they touched inside the vessel and rendered the wine impure.

And if he said to them, “Go, and I will come after you,” once

his eye was hidden from them,

we are concerned lest they touched the wine, and

his pure items are impure.

This concludes the beraita.

The Gemara explains:

What is different in the first clause, and what is different in the latter clause?

That is, why in the first clause are we not concerned lest they touched the pure items?

Rav Yitzhak said,

in the

first clause,

his pure items are pure, since it is speaking

of one who purifies his donkey-drivers and laborers for this purpose.

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

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

If so, the latter clause also?

Why in the latter clause are his pure items impure? The Gemara answers: Since

an am ha-aretz is not careful about the touch of his fellow,

we are concerned lest another am ha-aretz who happened upon their path touched them.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

If so, even

in the

first clause also,

since he distanced himself from them,

let us say so?

Perhaps another am ha-aretz touched them?