Avodah Zarah 70b (ע:) — the Talmud in English

An incident involving

a certain young girl [a gentile girl]

who was found standing among wine barrels [found standing among wine barrels],

, and she was holding foam in her hand [and she was holding a clump of wine foam in her hand].

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

One might say,

it is possible to be lenient and say:

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

And although there was no more foam there, one might say that it happened to be there and she happened to take it. [And even though no more foam was found on the side of the barrel, perhaps there had happened to be foam there, and she took it.]

The halakha follows Rava in all the cases cited above.

A certain military force [an army unit]

that went up to Nehardea

and opened many barrels [many wine barrels].

When Rav Dimi arrived [when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael],

he said: There was an incident of this kind before Rabbi Elazar, and he permitted the wine.

There was an incident of this kind before Rabbi Elazar, and he permitted the wine.

And I do not know whether it was because he held in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer, who said: In a case of uncertainty as to entry, the item is pure.

The reason this is considered “uncertainty as to entry” will be explained below.

Or whether it was because he held that the majority of those who accompany the military force [the majority of those who go with the army commander]

are Jews.

Consequently, the wine is permitted.

The Gemara raises an objection:

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

,

how can

this be called “uncertainty as to entry”

?!

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

it is an uncertainty as to contact!

Why, then, did Rabbi Eliezer permit the wine?

The Gemara answers:

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

, one might say,

it is reasonable to assume that they did not open the barrels in order to perform a libation, but rather

for the sake of money [to search for money hidden in the barrels]

they opened them. And

therefore, although the uncertainty is technically an uncertainty as to contact, since the reasoning supports leniency,

it is comparable to an uncertainty as to entry.

The wine is therefore permitted. An incident involving

a certain female tavernkeeper [a female wine seller]

, to whom she handed a key [she handed over the store keys]

to a gentile woman,

so that she would guard them. But she did not permit her to enter inside.

Rav Yitzḥak said in the name of Rabbi Elazar

There was an incident

in the house of study [an incident of this kind was brought for discussion in the house of study]

, and they said:

since

she entrusted her only with guarding the key,

and if she entered inside she would be caught as a thief, there is no concern that she entered. The wine is permitted. Abaye said: We too have learned this in a Mishna [we find an explicit Mishna (Teharot, chapter 7, mishna 1) in accordance with Rav Yitzḥak’s statement]

“One who entrusts the keys

of his house

to an am ha’aretz,

and there were ritually pure items there,

his ritually pure items remain pure.

We do not fear that the am ha’aretz entered his house and touched them,

because he entrusted him only with guarding the key.”

Abaye infers:

Now,

even if

his ritually pure items remain pure, is it necessary to state this regarding idolatrous wine?!

All the more so, there is no concern that the gentile touched the wine.

The Gemara infers from Abaye’s statement:

This is to say,

it follows from his words that he used the expression “all the more so”:

ritually pure items are more stringent [more stringent]

than idolatrous wine.

Yes!

Indeed, that is so.

As it was stated:

A courtyard

shared by a haver who is careful regarding the laws of ritual purity and an am ha’aretz, who renders ritually pure items impure,

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

, Rav said:

we fear that the am ha’aretz may cross the partition, and therefore

his ritually pure items are impure 219.

But

on the other hand,

in

a courtyard shared by a Jew and a

gentile,

divided by a low partition,

he does not render wine idolatrous.

It is thus clear, in accordance with Abaye’s statement, that ritually pure items are more stringent than idolatrous wine.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even his ritually pure items remain pure.

The Gemara raises an objection:

It was objected:

We learned in a baraita: There were two courtyards, one within the other, and

the inner one belonged to a haver and the outer one belonged to an am ha’aretz; that haver may spread fruit there and place vessels there, even though the am ha’aretz’s hand can reach there [meaning, he can extend his hand and touch them].

There is no concern that the am ha’aretz may touch them.

But if the inner courtyard belonged to an am ha’aretz and the outer one to a haver, the haver’s ritually pure items are impure. Since the am ha’aretz has right of passage through his courtyard, we fear that he may have touched them.

In any event, it follows from the baraita that we do not fear that the am ha’aretz will extend his hand and touch the ritually pure items.

And this is difficult for

the statement of

Rav

above, who was concerned about contact by an am ha’aretz?

The Gemara answers:

Rav would say to you: There it is different, because

if the am ha’aretz entered the inner courtyard,

he would be caught as a thief,

and therefore there is no concern that the am ha’aretz would touch them. This is unlike a shared courtyard divided by a low partition: it is considered one courtyard, and he would not be caught as a thief if he extended his hand into the other section. Therefore, his ritually pure items are impure.

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

Come [and]

hear

what we learned in a baraita concerning this matter:

Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says: The roof of a haver

situated

above the roof of an am ha’aretz,

that haver may spread fruit there and place vessels there, provided that the am ha’aretz’s hand cannot reach there.

It follows that if the am ha’aretz’s hand can reach there, it is prohibited.

And this is difficult for

the statement of

Rabbi Yoḥanan,

who declares the ritually pure items pure even though the am ha’aretz’s hand can reach there?

The Gemara answers:

Rabbi Yoḥanan would say to you: There it is different, because he has an excuse [the am ha’aretz can find an excuse for extending his hand]

He might say, “I was measuring the roof.” [I extended my hand in order to measure the roof of the building],

and therefore the ritually pure items are impure. But generally, there is no concern.

Another proof to the contrary:

Come and hear: The roof of a haver

situated

beside the roof of an am ha’aretz; that haver may spread fruit there and place vessels there, and

there is no concern that the am ha’aretz touched them,

even though the am ha’aretz’s hand can reach there.

Yet seemingly, from this baraita it is

difficult for

the statement of

Rav

above, who was concerned about contact by an am ha’aretz?

The Gemara answers:

Rav would say to you: Wasn’t Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel brought above, who agrees with me

?!

I speak in accordance with Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel!

Mishna:

A search party [a military search unit that enters a city to search for food supplies for the army]

that entered a city in peacetime: all

barrels

of wine that were found

open

are prohibited.

But

sealed barrels are permitted.

And if the search party entered

in wartime, both these and those

whether open barrels, or sealed ones,

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