Avodah Zarah 70b — the Talmud in English

An incident involving

that young girl [a gentile girl]

who was found to have been among the wine barrels [found standing among wine barrels]

, and she was holding foam in her hand [and held in her hand a ?crust? of wine].

Rava said: The wine is permitted [the wine is permitted for drinking].

Say,

it is possible to be lenient and say,

she took it from the back of the barrel [she took the foam from the back of the barrel, and did not touch the wine].

And although there was no more of it, say: it happened to happen to her. [And even though no more foam was found on the back of the barrel, perhaps it happened that foam had been there, and she took it].

И галахическое решение соответствует мнению Равы во всех случаях, приведенных выше.

The halakha follows Rava, in all the cases brought above.

A certain army [a military force]

that went up to Nehardea, and

opened many barrels [many wine barrels].

When Rav Dimi came [when Rav Dimi came from the Land of Israel],

, he said: There was an incident before Rabbi Elazar, and he permitted it.

There was a case similar to this before Rabbi Elazar, and he permitted the wine.

And I do not know whether it was because he held like Rabbi Eliezer, who said: Uncertain entry is pure.

And below it will be explained why this is an “uncertain entry.”

Or whether it was because he held: The majority of those who go with the army [the majority of those who go with the army]

are Israelites.

And consequently the wine is permitted.

The Gemara raises an objection:

If so [if you say that the majority of the “army” are not Jews, and you came to permit the wine because of “uncertain entry”],

,

then

is this “uncertain entry”

what it is?

Surely it is certain that the army opened the barrels, and if so,

it is uncertainty of touching!

And why did Rabbi Eliezer permit the wine?

The Gemara answers:

Since they opened many [since they opened many barrels, more than the amount needed for drinking]

, say,

it is reasonable to say that they did not open the barrels in order to pour a libation, but

with the intention of money [to search for money concealed in the barrels]

they opened them. And

therefore, even though the uncertainty is “uncertainty of touching,” since the reasoning indicates that one may be lenient,

it is comparable to uncertain entry.

And the wine is permitted. An incident involving

a certain female wine-seller [a woman selling wine],

, who handed her a key [handed over the shop keys]

to a gentile woman,

in order that she guard them. But she did not permit her to enter inside.

Rav Yitzhak said in the name of Rav Elazar

There was an incident

in the beit-midrash [a case similar to this was brought for discussion in the beit-midrash]

, and they said:

since

she handed her only the guarding of the key,

and if she entered inside she would be caught as a thief, there is no concern that she entered. And the wine is permitted. Abaye said: We too have also learned [we found an explicit Mishna (Toharot, chapter 7, Mishna 1) in accordance with the words of Rav Yitzhak]

, “One who hands over the keys

of his house

to an am ha-aretz,

and there were pure items there,

his pure items are pure.

And we do not fear that the am ha-aretz entered his house and touched them,

because he handed him only the guarding of the key.”

And Abaye infers:

Now,

even

if his pure items are pure, is forbidden wine a question?!

It is a kal va-chomer that there is no concern about the gentile’s touching the wine.

The Gemara infers from Abaye’s words:

It follows,

it is implied from his words that he used the expression “kal va-chomer,”

that pure items are stronger [more stringent]

than forbidden wine.

Yes!

Indeed, so.

For it was stated [for a ruling was stated in the beit-midrash]:

A courtyard

shared by a chaver who is careful concerning the laws of purity and an am ha-aretz who renders pure items impure,

which was divided by a low partition [a low partition serving merely as a marker]

, Rav said,

we fear that the am ha-aretz may pass the partition, and therefore

his pure items are impure 219 .

And

on the other hand,

in

a courtyard shared by a Jew and a

gentile,

and divided by a low partition,

he does not make forbidden wine.

And it is explained, in accordance with Abaye’s words, that pure items are more stringent than forbidden wine.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: Even his pure items are pure.

The Gemara objected:

It was objected,

we learned in a baraita: Two courtyards, one within the other, and the

inner one belonged to a chaver, and the outer one to an am ha-aretz; that chaver may spread fruit there and place vessels there, even though the hand of the am ha-aretz reaches there [that is, he can extend his hand and touch there].

And we do not fear that the am ha-aretz might touch them.

But if the inner one belonged to an am ha-aretz and the outer one to a chaver, his pure items are impure. Since the am ha-aretz has the right of passage in his courtyard, we fear that he might have touched them.

In any event, it is implied in the baraita that we do not fear that the am ha-aretz might put in his hand and touch the pure items. And

it is difficult for

the words of

Rav

above, who was concerned about the am ha-aretz’s touching?

The Gemara answers:

Rav can say to you: There I am different, because

if the am ha-aretz enters the inner courtyard

he will be caught as a thief,

and therefore there is no concern about the am ha-aretz’s touching. This is not so in a shared courtyard divided by a low partition: it is like one courtyard, and he would not be caught as a thief if he put in his hand. Therefore his pure items are impure.

The Gemara brings another baraita relevant to the dispute between Rav and Rabbi Yohanan:

Come [come] and

hear

what we learned in a baraita concerning this matter:

Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says: The roof of a chaver

that is

higher than the roof of an am ha-aretz,

that chaver may spread fruit there and place vessels there, provided that the hand of the am ha-aretz does not reach there.

It is implied that if the hand of the am ha-aretz reaches there, it is forbidden. And

it is difficult for

the words of

Rabbi Yohanan,

who declares the pure items pure even though the hand of the am ha-aretz reaches there?

The Gemara answers:

Rabbi Yohanan can say to you: There I am different, for he has a way to excuse himself [the am ha-aretz can find an excuse for putting in his hand]

. He says: I was measuring [I extended my hand in order to measure the roof of the building],

and therefore his pure items are impure. But ordinarily, there is no concern.

Another proof to the contrary:

Come and hear: The roof of a chaver

that is

beside the roof of an am ha-aretz, that chaver may spread fruit there and place vessels there, and

we do not fear the am ha-aretz’s touching,

even though the hand of the am ha-aretz reaches there.

По-видимому, из этой барайты

And seemingly from this baraita

it is difficult for

the words of

Rav

above, who was concerned about the am ha-aretz’s touching?

The Gemara answers:

Rav can say to you: Is there not Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel, who stands in agreement with me [was not the view of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who holds in accordance with my words, brought above] ?!

?!

I speak in accordance with Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel!

Mishna:

A search party [an army of scouts entering a city in order to search for food supplies for the army]

that entered a city in a time of peace: all

barrels

of wine that were found

open,

are forbidden.

But

closed barrels are permitted.

And if it entered

in a time of war, both these and those,

both open barrels, and closed ones,

are permitted, because there is no time to pour a libation.: