Babylonian Talmud: Tractate ‘Abodah Zarah

Folio 74a

MISHNAH. THE FOLLOWING ARE PROHIBITED AND RENDER PROHIBITED¹  BY THE SMALLEST QUANTITY: [A CASK OF] YEN NESEK,²  AN IDOLATROUS OBJECT,³  SKINS OF ANIMALS WHICH HAVE HOLES OVER THE REGION OF THE HEART,⁴  AN OX WHICH HAD BEEN STONED,⁵  AN HEIFER WHOSE NECK WAS BROKEN,⁶  BIRDS BROUGHT AS AN OFFERING BY A LEPER,⁷  THE HAIR-OFFERING OF A NAZIRITE,⁸  THE FIRSTLING OF AN ASS,⁹  FLESH COOKED IN MILK,¹⁰  THE SCAPEGOAT,¹¹  AND NON-CONSECRATED ANIMALS SLAUGHTERED IN THE TEMPLECOURT.¹²  BEHOLD THESE ARE PROHIBITED AND RENDER PROHIBITED BY THE SMALLEST QUANTITY.

GEMARA. On what basis does the Tanna make his enumeration? If he enumerates objects which are [customarily] numbered,¹³  then he should include slices of meat from an animal which had not been ritually slaughtered; if they are objects which may not be put to any use, then he should include leaven during Passover! — R. Hiyya b. Abba — another version is, R. Isaac the smith — said: The Tanna enumerates the objects to which both criteria apply, viz., they are customarily numbered and may not be put to any use.¹⁴  In that case he should include the nuts of Perek and the pomegranates of Baddan¹⁵  because they are customarily numbered and may not be put to any use! [The compiler of the Mishnah] treated of them elsewhere,¹⁶  [and he enumerated a list of which he stated:] Those which belong to 'orlah-fruit come within the law of 'orlah, and those which belong to mixed plantings of a vineyard come within the law of mixed plantings of a vineyard. Then he should include the loaves of a householder¹⁷  with reference to the law of leaven during Passover!¹⁸  — The teacher whom you have heard expressing this opinion is R. Akiba; and [the compiler of the Mishnah] has already stated there:¹⁹  R. Akiba adds the loaves of a householder.

BEHOLD THESE. What do these words intend to exclude? — To exclude things which are customarily numbered but are not prohibited for all use, or the things which are prohibited for all use but are not customarily numbered.²⁰ 

MISHNAH. IF YEN NESEK FELL INTO A VAT, THE WHOLE OF IT IS PROHIBITED FOR ALL USE. R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAYS: THE WHOLE OF IT MAY BE SOLD TO HEATHENS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF [A QUANTITY CORRESPONDING TO] THE VALUE OF THE YEN NESEK IN IT.

GEMARA. Rab said: The halachah agrees with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel when a cask [of yen nesek] has been mixed with other casks, but not when it is a matter of wine [which is nesek becoming mixed with other] wine. Samuel, on the other hand, said: Even when it is wine mixed with wine. Similarly said Rabbah b. Bar Hanah in the name of R. Johanan: Even when it is wine mixed with wine. Similarly said R. Samuel b. Nathan in the name of R. Hanina: Even when it is wine mixed with wine. Similarly said R. Nahman in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: Even when it is wine mixed with wine. R. Nahman said: In practice the rule to follow in connection with yen nesek is that when wine is mixed with wine it is prohibited and a cask mixed with casks is permitted;²¹  but with ordinary wine²²  even when it is a matter of wine being mixed with wine it is permitted.²³

1. What they are mixed with, irrespective of the proportion of the forbidden element to the whole.
2. When confused with other casks of wine.
3. E.g., an image which had been worshipped confused with others of a similar kind which had not been worshipped.
4. V. supra 29b.
5. Ex. XXI, 29.
6. Deut. XXI, 4.
7. Lev. XIV, 4 ff.
8. Num. VI, 18.
9. Ex. XIII, 13.
10. Ibid. XXIII, 19.
11. Lev, XVI, 22.
12. V. B.K. 70a.
13. With such objects each one is a separate entity, and therefore it cannot be annulled by becoming absorbed in the rest.
14. [Thus excluding from his ruling leaven during Passover, unless it is of a large size, and slices of meat which had not been ritually slaughtered.]
15. They are both localities in Samaria (cf. Rashi). These nuts and pomegranates are included in a list of fruits which are counted when sold and render prohibited what they are mixed with if they are in a state of 'orlah. V. 'Orlah III, 7. [Tosaf. Yeb. 81b s.v. lrp takes the former to mean 'crack nuts'.]
16. Loc. cit. Having dealt with them in that Tractate, the Mishnah does not include them here.
17. As distinct from the loaves of a baker which are smaller.
18. Because both criteria apply to them.
19. V. 'Orlah loc. cit.
20. These do not render prohibited by the smallest quantity.
21. For use only (but not for drinking) apart from the value of one cask. This agrees with Rab.
22. Belonging to heathens which had not been used for a libation.
23. For use only (not for drinking). With the deduction of the value of the heathen's wine.

MISHNAH. IF A HEATHEN COVERED A STONE WINE-PRESS WITH PITCH¹  IT MAY BE SCOURED AND IS THEN CLEAN; BUT IF IT WAS OF WOOD, RABBI SAYS THAT IT MAY BE SCOURED²  AND THE SAGES SAY THAT HE MUST PEEL OFF THE PITCH.³  IF IT WAS OF EARTHENWARE, EVEN THOUGH HE PEELED OFF THE PITCH IT IS PROHIBITED.⁴

GEMARA. Raba said: [Scouring is necessary] only when he coated it with pitch,⁵  but not if he trod [his grapes] in it.⁶  This is obvious since the Mishnah stated: COVERED … WITH PITCH! — You might have said that the same law⁷  applied even if he trod them in it, and the reason why he stated the circumstance of coating with pitch is because he mentioned the customary practice.⁸  He accordingly informs us [that rinsing is sufficient if the heathen trod grapes in it]. Another version is: Raba said: [Scouring is necessary] only when he coated it with pitch, but if he trod [his grapes in a press which had been covered with pitch] scouring is insufficient.⁹  This is obvious, since the Mishnah stated: COVERED … WITH PITCH! — You might have said that the same law¹⁰  applied even when he trod them in it, and the reason why he stated the circumstance of coating with pitch is because he mentioned the customary practice. He accordingly informs us that [scouring suffices] only when he coated it with pitch but if he trod in it scouring is insufficient. As when a man came before R. Hiyya and said to him, 'Provide for me a man to purify my winepress.' [R. Hiyya] said to Rab, 'Go with him and see that there is no ground for complaint against me in the House of Study.'¹¹  He went and noticed that [the sides of the press] were very smooth; so he said, 'Here it will surely be sufficient with scouring.' But as he proceeded [with his examination] he noticed a crack at the bottom and saw that it was full of wine; so he said, 'Here it will not be sufficient with scouring but it will have to be scraped.' That is what my uncle¹²  intended when he said to me, 'See that there is no ground for complaint against me in the House of Study.'

Our Rabbis taught: As for the winepress, ladle and funnel¹³  belonging to a heathen, Rabbi permits them after scouring, whereas the Sages prohibit them. Rabbi, however, admits that flasks¹⁴  belonging to a heathen are prohibited. What is the difference between one and the other? — In the latter he puts wine to be kept but not in the former.¹⁵  Should [the winepress, ladle or funnel] be of wood or stone he scours them,¹⁶  and if they had been covered with pitch they are prohibited.¹⁷  But we learnt: IF A HEATHEN COVERED A STONE WINEPRESS WITH PITCH IT MAY BE SCOURED AND IS THEN CLEAN! — Our Mishnah refers to when he had not trodden in it,¹⁸  and the quoted Baraitha to when he had trodden in it.¹⁹

The Master said, 'As for the winepress, ladle and funnel²⁰  belonging to a heathen, Rabbi permits them after scouring, whereas the Sages prohibit them.' But we learnt: IF IT WAS OF EARTHENWARE, EVEN THOUGH HE PEELED OFF THE PITCH IT IS PROHIBITED! — Raba said: This last clause of our Mishnah gives the view of the Rabbis.²¹

Raba expounded: 'Scald the vat!'²²  When Raba sent [empty] jars to Harpania²³  he placed them mouth downwards [in sacks] the hem of which he sealed, being of the opinion that the Rabbis decreed against every utensil into which [wine] is put for keeping [by a heathen] even temporarily. With what does one scour them? — Rab said: With water; Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said: With ashes. When Rab said with water, [did he mean] with water and not with ashes; and when Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said with ashes [did he mean] with ashes and not with water! — Rather

1. The custom was to throw in some wine to remove the smell of the pitch.
2. With water and ashes.
3. A thicker coating is necessary with wood and it would absorb a greater quantity of wine.
4. Because of the absorptive power of the earthenware.
5. And threw wine into the vat.
6. Without coating it with pitch; in that circumstance rinsing is sufficient.
7. That scouring is necessary.
8. Viz., to throw wine into a vat after pitching it.
9. The pitch must also be peeled off, because the wine must have penetrated the cracks in the pitch.
10. That scouring is sufficient.
11. I.e., see that the cleaning is done according to law that the man's wine should not be disqualified.
12. Either 'my friend' or 'my uncle', this being the relationship of Rab and R. Hiyya. V. Sanh. 5a.
13. Made of earthenware and not covered with pitch.
14. When made of earthenware and not covered with pitch.
15. Consequently there is less time for the wine to become absorbed, and scouring makes them fit for use.
16. On this point they all agree.
17. Unless the pitch is scraped off.
18. So if the press was of stone, all agree that scouring is enough, and if of wood only Rabbi requires it to be scoured.
19. In that event, whether it is of stone or wood, the pitch must be scraped off.
20. [I.e., of earthenware, since those of wood or stone are mentioned later.]
21. And Rabbi differs from them.
22. Of a heathen before a Jew may use it.
23. A town in Babylon. He sent them in charge of a heathen. He took these precautions to guard against the carrier putting his wine into the jars, even for a short while, and disqualifying them. [Harpania on the Tigris, South of Babylon, was one of the most fruitful districts in the country; and Raba, whose home was Mahuza, also on the Tigris, sent down his empty casks to Harpania in order to import wine from there. V. Obermeyer, op. cit., p. 200.]