ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Avodah Zarah 56
AVODAH ZARAH 56 - Dedicated by Barry Epstein of Dallas, Texas -- may the
light of the Torah always illuminate and protect him and his entire family!
(a) The Mishnah in Ma'asros states 'Yayin mi'she'Yikpeh'. The Tana says this
with regard to - 'G'mar Melachah for Ma'asros (i.e. from then on, one is no
longer permitted to drink from the wine even casually without Ma'asering
(b) 'mi'she'Yikpeh' means - from the time that the pits begin to float to
(c) Rava reconciles this with our Mishnah, which gives the Shiur for wine as
from the time it flows into the wine-pit - by establishing the latter like
the Tana Kama, whereas the Beraisa follows the opinion of Rebbi Akiva in a
(a) We ask whether 'mi'she'Yikpeh' means - when the wine is in the wine-pit,
or after it has already been placed in barrels.
(b) The Mishnah in Ma'asros states that even after the wine has already
reached the stage of 'mi'she'Yikpeh' - one may take wine from the upper
wine-press and from the pipe (without having to Ma'aser it).
(c) In that case - 'mi'she'Yikpeh' must refer to the wine in the wine-press
(and not to the wine in the barrels (because what is the connection between
the wine in the barrels and the wine in the wine-press and in the pipes).
(a) In another Beraisa quoted by Rav be'de'Bei Rebbi Oshaya, the Tana Kama
gives the Shi'ur for Ma'asros as 'mi'she'Yeired le'Bor ve'Yikpeh'. Rebbi
Akiva says - from the time the wine is placed in barrels.
(b) We reconcile this with the Machlokes between the Tana Kama and Rebbi
Akiva in the earlier Beraisa - by amending the Machlokes there to conform
with the Machlokes here.
(c) This does not mean that our Mishnah, which gives the Shi'ur as 'Ad
she'Yeired le'Bor' is a third opinion - but that Chazal were more stringent
by Yayin Nesech than by Ma'asros (and that the Shi'ur in our Mishnah is
(d) According to Rava, who (earlier on the Amud) did not differentiate
between Ma'aser and Yayin Nesech - our Mishnah is indeed a third opinion.
(a) We learned in our Mishnah that what is in the wine-pit is Asur, and the
rest is permitted. Rav Huna qualifies this, restricting it to where the
Nochri did not return the contents of the Gargusni to the wine-press.
'Gargusni' is - the basket that is attached to the drain leading from the
wine-press to the wine-pit, whose purpose is to filter the wine before it
reaches the wine-press.
(b) If he did, it would render the wine in the wine-press Asur - because of
the stream of wine (we assume) that flows from the basket to the wine-pit,
joining the two together (rendering the wine in the basket, Asur).
(c) We cannot concluding from here that 'Nitzuk Chibur' ('Nitzuk' is
considered joined) - because that is actually a Machlokes Amora'im in the
next Perek (and nobody brings a proof from here to that effect. See also
Tosfos DH 'Sh'ma Minah').
(d) To avoid having to make such a conclusion, we quote a Beraisa learned by
Rebbi Chiya in a slightly different context - 'she'Pachsaso Tzeluchiso',
which in our case, will read - 'she'Pachsaso Boro', meaning that the basket
actually hung into the wine-pit, which was so full, that it merged with the
wine in the basket.
(a) The child - was six when he learned 'Avodah-Zarah'.
(b) When they asked him whether one is permitted to tread the grapes in the
wine-press together with a Nochri - he replied in the affirmative.
(c) And when they asked him why we are not afraid that he will stir the wine
(be Menasech to Avodah-Zarah) ...
1. ... with his hands, he replied - that we are speaking when his hands were
(d) The problem with treading grapes together with a Nochri is that (despite
our Mishnah, which *does not* consider wine to be wine until it reaches the
wine-pit) is - that Rav Huna already ruled like the Mishnah Acharonah, which
2. ... with his feet, he replied that Nisuch with the feet is not considered
(a) With regard to the She'eilah in Neherda'a concerning a case where a
Yisrael trod wine together with a Nochri - Shmuel left the case in abeyance
for three Regalim ...
(b) ... because that was when everyone would converge on Neherda'a for the
Yarchei Kalah (the D'rashah covering Hilchos Yom-Tov).
(a) We initially thought that Shmuel was looking for a Posek (among the
participants) who ruled like Rebbi Nasan. The Tana Kama of the Beraisa
containing Rebbi Nasan's ruling says 'Mad'do Bein be'Yad, Bein be'Regel,
Yimacher' - because the Nochri was too busy measuring to be concerned with
shaking the wine for sacrificial purposes.
(b) Rebbi Nasan says 'Asur'. We reject our initial proposition - because we
have no proof that Rebbi Nasan is arguing with the Tana Kama by 'Bein
be'Yad' as well as 'ul'Bein be'Ragel'.
(c) We therefore conclude that Shmuel was looking for a Posek who ruled like
Rebbi Shimon - who, in a Mishnah later, even permitted drinking wine of a
Yisrael which a Nochri touched without intending to make Nisuch (and
likewise wine which is pressed by a Nochri together with a Yisrael [see
Tosfos DH 'I Ashkachna').
(d) Rebbi Shimon is speaking about - a Nochri who fell into a wine-pit and
emerged from it.