Avodah Zarah 74b — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

A stone winepress

made for treading grapes for wine,

which a gentile tarred

with tar, so that the winepress would be sealed and the wine would not be absorbed into its cracks. And the tar has a bitter taste. And they are accustomed to place wine into the tar in order to dispel its bitterness.

And if so, there is concern lest the gentile placed wine into it and performed libation with it. Therefore, in order to render it fit from the gentile’s wine. And the procedure for rendering it fit is:

he wipes it

with water and ash —

and it is pure!

And

a winepress

of wood

which is the way of wood to absorb a great deal of wine, and therefore they also tar it with a greater quantity of tar; and for that reason they also place more wine into it in order to remove its bitterness, -

Even so,

Rabbi says: He shall wipe it

and the law of a wooden winepress is like the law of a stone winepress.

And the Sages

disagree

and say:

the remedy for a wooden winepress is not achieved through wiping alone; rather,

he shall peel off the tar!

And

a winepress

of earthenware

has no remedy at all, since the earthenware itself absorbs some of the wine. And therefore—in everyone’s view—

even though he peeled off the tar, it remains forbidden!

Gemara:

Rava said:

The manner of rendering a stone winepress fit that is required in our Mishna is

specifically

if

the gentile tarred it,

and there is concern lest the tar absorbed some of the wine placed into it in order to dispel its bitterness.

But

if the gentile only

trod wine in it

without having tarred it beforehand,

he does not

need wiping; rather, rinsing alone suffices. [Below it will be explained what wiping is and what rinsing is.]

The Gemara expresses surprise:

It is obvious!

After all,

“which he tarred,” we learned

in the Mishna. And from where would it enter one’s mind to raise the possibility that the Mishna is speaking even of treading wine alone without tarring?!

The Gemara explains:

It might have been said

that

the same law applies even

if

he trod wine in it

that wiping would be required.

And this that it teaches

and what it taught in our Mishna

“which he tarred,”

and did not teach “in which he trod wine,” is because

it teaches the customary manner

the way of the world: before treading in a winepress, they tar it and place wine into it to dispel the bitterness of the tar. And therefore

it teaches

“which he tarred,” but in truth, even if he trod wine without tarring, the law would be the same. -

It teaches us

that only if he tarred it must he wipe it. If the gentile only trod grapes in it, wiping is not required; rather, rinsing alone is required.

Some say

that there are those who repeat Rava’s statement in this manner:

Rava said:

The law of the Mishna, that wiping is effective, is

specifically

if the gentile only

tarred

it.

But

if

he trod wine in it

after he tarred it,

it is not sufficient

to render it fit

through wiping,

but he must also peel off the tar, since the wine that was trodden in it penetrates inward.

The Gemara expresses surprise:

Is it obvious?!

After all, only

“which he tarred,” we learned

in the Mishna. And from where is it to be said that even if he trod wine in that tarred winepress, this procedure for rendering it fit would be effective?!

The Gemara explains:

It might have been said

that

the same law applies

that rendering it fit through wiping would be effective

even

if he trod wine in it.

And this that it teaches

and what it writes in our Mishna

“which he tarred”

and not “in which he trod wine,” is because

the customary manner

it teaches: it stated the customary manner of the world, that one who tars a winepress does so for the purpose of treading wine in it. Therefore, it would have been possible to learn from our Mishna that this wiping is effective even if he trod wine in it. -

It follows the ordinary course of events, in which one who tars a winepress does so in order to press wine in it. Therefore, one might infer from our Mishna that wiping is effective even if wine was pressed in it. -

It teaches us

that

specifically

if he only

tarred

it is this procedure for rendering it fit effective.

But

if he also

trod wine in it—

it is not sufficient

[for it]

to be wiped,

but the tar must be peeled off.

The Gemara brings and proves from an incident that occurred concerning this matter:

Like that one who came before

like that man who came before

Rabbi Hiyya; he said to him:

Send me a man who will purify my winepress

Send me a man who will render my winepress fit [which apparently he had purchased from a gentile ].

Rabbi Hiyya said to Rav: Go with him

Go with him to instruct him in rendering the winepress fit,

and see

and see to doing this correctly and in a valid manner,

lest

I cause him to lose his wine, and it will turn out that

he will cry out

he will cry out

against me in the beit-midrash

for having instructed him in something that brings him to loss.

He went; he saw it

Rav went and saw

that it was exceedingly smooth

that the tarred winepress was very smooth.

He said

Rav:

This

since it was smooth and its absorption was not great

, surely wiping is sufficient

sufficient

for it.

As he was going and coming

while he was going and coming,

he saw a crack beneath it

he saw a crack beneath the tar,

and he saw that it was full of wine

and saw that it was full of wine.

He said: This

this winepress

is not sufficient

is not enough

for it to be wiped; rather

its rendering fit is

through peeling!

And this is

this is

what my beloved told me

Rabbi Hiyya [who was his uncle]

see

see to rendering the winepress fit in a correct and valid manner,

lest he cry out against me

lest he cry out against me

in the beit-midrash!

The Sages taught: The winepress, the mahatz

which is the vessel with which wine is drawn from the pit [in which the wine gathers after the grapes have been trodden],

and the funnel

[which were made of earthenware and were not tarred] and

they belong to gentiles,

Rabbi permits

rendering them fit

through wiping

alone,

and the Sages forbid.

And Rabbi concedes concerning jugs

of earthenware

belonging to gentiles, that

even though they are not tarred, they are

forbidden

and this procedure for rendering them fit is not effective for them. Rather, in order to render them fit, one must fill them for three days and pour them out every twenty-four hours. Only after three days are the jugs fit.

And

the Gemara clarifies:

What is the difference between this and that,

that for the winepress and its vessels wiping is sufficient, whereas jugs require the more substantial procedure of filling and pouring out?

The distinction is as follows:

This,

jugs,

he puts

the wine

into

inside the jugs for

storage

in them for a long time. Therefore, over time the jug absorbs more and more wine. And for that reason they require a substantial procedure for rendering them fit.

And this,

the vessels of the winepress,

he does not put

the wine

for storage

for a long time, but only for a short time while treading. Consequently, they do not absorb much, and wiping is sufficient to render them fit.

And

if the winepress, the mahatz, and the funnel were of

wood or stone

and were not tarred—

he shall wipe them

and they are fit according to everyone.

And if they were tarred—

they are forbidden

and they have no remedy until he peels off the tar.

The Gemara asks:

But did we not learn

we learned in our Mishna—

“A stone winepress which a gentile tarred, he wipes it and it is pure.”

Yet here it is explained that if he tarred it, it is forbidden? The Gemara answers:

The Mishna

our Mishna is speaking of a winepress

in which the gentile did not tread wine.

Therefore wiping is sufficient.

Whereas the

beraita

is speaking of a winepress

in which he trod wine

and its absorption is great; therefore it has no remedy except through peeling off the tar.

The Master said

in the beraita above:

“The winepress, the mahatz, and the funnel belonging to gentiles: Rabbi permits through wiping, and the Sages forbid.”

The Gemara raises an objection:

But we learned

in our Mishna that a winepress

of earthenware—even though he peeled off the tar, it remains forbidden?!

And this law is seemingly according to everyone, whereas in this beraita Rabbi permits the winepress through wiping alone?

Rava said:

The

conclusion of the Mishna,

where it says that there is no remedy for an earthenware winepress,

comes

is stated

for

the view of

the Sages.

However, according to Rabbi, indeed they have a remedy through peeling.

And this is the method of the Sages in our Mishna: a stone winepress in which he did not tread wine—he shall wipe it; one of wood—he shall peel it; whereas one of earthenware has no remedy.

And according to Rabbi, a stone and a wooden winepress are rendered fit through wiping, whereas an earthenware one is peeled.

Rava expounded: Scald the winepresses

the winepresses that they took from gentiles, scald them with boiling water!

When Rava would send earthenware jars

when he would send empty jugs through a gentile messenger

to

a place called

Harpanya, he would turn them over onto their mouths

he would turn them over and place them inside the sack, with their mouths downward and their bases upward,

And he sealed them on their bases

he would seal the opening of the sack, over the bases of the vessels when they were inverted. And he did this because of “a seal within a seal”

And why did he do so?

He held

Rava that

anything

even an empty vessel into which it is customary for a person

to put

wine

for storage

for a long time,

even

if the vessel is in the gentile’s possession

temporarily,

and seemingly there is no concern lest he place wine inside it during that short time that the vessel is in his possession, nevertheless

the Sages decreed concerning it

that it is forbidden to leave this vessel in the gentile’s possession, as though it were actual wine.

And therefore Rava sealed the vessel with a seal within a seal.

We learned in our Mishna: A stone winepress which a gentile tarred—he wipes it.

The Gemara clarifies:

With what does he wipe them?

Rav said:

He wipes them

with water.

Rabba bar bar Hana said:

He wipes them

with ash.

[Below it will be explained how this wiping is performed.] And the Gemara raises an objection:

Rav said

he wipes them

with water.

Does this mean that he wipes them

with water

alone

and not with ash,

and how is such wiping with water alone effective in cleaning the wine?

And further,

Rabba bar bar Hana said

he wipes them

with ash.

Does this mean that he wipes them

with ash

alone

and not with water,

and how is this wiping effective?!