(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


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 it).

(b) 'mi'she'Yikpeh' means - from the time that the pits begin to float to the top.

(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 Beraisa.

(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 therefore unanimous).

(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 tied.
2. ... with his feet, he replied that Nisuch with the feet is not considered Nisuch.
(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 *does*.
(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.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,