(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 60



(a) Rav Yeimar connects Rav Papa's ruling with a Mishnah in T'vul-Yom (as we just explained). The Tana Kama there rules that a barrel containing Terumah wine in which a hole appeared and a T'vul-Yom touched the wine by the hole - all the wine is forbidden, irrespective of where the hole is ...

(b) ... because all the wine is joined.

(c) According to Rebbi Yehudah, all the wine is Tamei in the case where the hole is ...

1. ... on top - because the wine below is a Basis to the wine that is by the hole.
2. ... at the bottom - because all the wine is drawn after the wine that is by the hole.
(d) Where the hole is at the side however, all the wine that is beyond the thickness of the hole is Tahor (see Tosfos Yom-Tov in T'vul-Yom). The wine that the T'vul-Yom touched does not render the rest of the wine Tamei, Tosfos (DH 'mi'Tzidehah') explains - because liquid that is touched by a T'vul-Yom can only invalidate, but not make Tamei.
(a) Rav Papa rules that in a case where ...
1. ... a Nochri is pouring wine from a barrel into a jug that a Yisrael is holding - the wine is Asur be'Hana'ah, because it is similar to a Nochri who dilutes wine, which is Asur be'Hana'ah because of 'Lech Lech Amrin li'Nezira ... ' (see Tosfos DH 'Oved-Kochavim').
2. ... a Yisrael is pouring wine from a barrel into a jug that a Nochri is holding - the wine is permitted.
(b) If, in the latter case, the Nochri tips the barrel, the wine is forbidden, either to drink, or even be'Hana'ah, depending on the case. The case and the suspicion that would forbid ...
1. ... the wine even be'Hana'ah would be - if the barrel was full, and we suspected the Nochri of touching the wine.
2. ... drinking it, but not benefiting from it - if the barrel was empty, and we suspected him of shaking it, (which is Kocho be'Kavanah).
(a) Rav Papa discusses the difference between a Nochri who is carrying a Zika (a flask) and a Kuva (a barrel), and who is being followed by a Yisrael. One transports a Zika covered - and a Kuva, open.

(b) Rav Papa permits benefiting from the wine in a full Zika - because he is neither able to touch the wine, nor does he want to shake it, because it will spill. But he forbids the wine when it is not full - because then (unnoticed by the Yisrael) he might shake it.

(c) On the other hand, he ...

1. ... forbids the wine in a full Kuva - because, he might (unnoticed by the Yisrael) touch it (see Tosfos (DH 'Zika').
2. ... permit the wine in a Kuva that is not full - because a. he cannot touch it without being seen by the Yisrael, and b. shaking the barrel is only considered an act of worship by a full barrel.
(d) Rav Ashi disagrees with Rav Papa's ruling regarding a half-full Zika - because, as Tosfos (DH 'Zika Bein Malaya') explains, it is not the done thing to perform Nisuch (via shaking) whilst walking.
(a) Rav Papi permits drinking the wine that a Nochri pressed in a Ma'atzra Zaira - which is a wine-press that works by means of a heavy board (rather than by treading). Rav Ashi forbids it.

(b) According to the first Lashon, they argue over Ko'ach Kocho - which means that the Nochri turned the wheel which caused the board to press the grapes.

(c) In a case of Kocho (where the Nochri actually stands or sits on the board) - they would both forbid the wine.

(d) According to the second Lashon - Rav Papi and Rav Ashi argue by Kocho, but agree that by Ko'ach Kocho, the wine is permitted.

(e) Rebbi Ya'akov from Nahar Pakud ruled in a case of Ko'ach Kocho - Asur.




(a) When a barrel containing wine split length-wise - a Nochri ran and embraced it, to prevent it from falling apart.

(b) Rafram bar Papa (or Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua) ruled there - that the wine could be sold to a Nochri, because, even if the Nochri touched the wine that was oozing through the crack, he could not have stirred it.

(c) If the barrel had split width-wise, he would have even permitted drinking the wine - because he achieved nothing with his pressing, because what he did was nothing more than press on the barrel like a brick.

(a) When they discovered a Nochri in the wine-press which did not contain any wine, Rav Ashi ruled that, assuming that the vessels were wet from the wine that was beginning to form, they required rinsing and drying. Drying entails - ashes, water and ashes (as will be explained in the last Perek).

(b) If they were still dry - they would require only rinsing.

(a) If one discovered a Nochri standing beside a wine-pit, the criterion given by our Mishnah to determine whether the wine is permitted or not is - whether the owner of the wine owes the Nochri money (in which case he will not be afraid to make the wine Nesech, because he will claim that he is claim the wine in lieu of his debt) or not (in which case he will be afraid).

(b) The Tana Kama of our Mishnah quotes the Chachamim as saying that all the following cases: where the Nochri fell into a wine-pit and came up, measured the depth of the wine or flicked out a hornet with his cane, or if he touched the wine whilst it was bubbling - actually occurred, and the ruling was issued 'Yimacher'.

(c) Rebbi Shimon - even permits the wine to be drunk.

(d) Finally, regarding a Nochri who takes an empty barrel of wine in his anger and throws it into the wine-pit - that too, says our Tana, actually happened, and they allowed the wine to be drunk.

(a) Shmuel qualifies the Din in our Mishnah 'Im Yesh Lo Milveh Alav, Asur' - by restricting it to when the Nochri actually has stakes in the wine (i.e. because the owner declared it an Apotiki [confining the claim to the wine alone]). Only then will the Nochri not be afraid to touch the wine. Otherwise, the wine will be permitted, because he will not dare to touch it (even if the Yisrael does owe him money).

(b) And we support Shmuel's ruling with the next Mishnah. When the Tana talks about 'ha'Metaher Yeino shel Oved-Kochavim', he means - that the Yisrael treads the Nochri's wine, which he will later sell to a fellow Yisrael

(c) The Tana speaks when he then leaves the wine in the Nochri's domain, and when he is only due to pay him - after the sale.

(a) That wine is permitted, because we are not afraid that the Nochri touched it) - if the Nochri writes the Yisrael a receipt (ahead of time) and allows him to take the wine whenever he pleases; but if he forbids him to take it (because he has not yet paid), it is Asur, as happened once in Beis Sha'an.

(b) We have proved - from the fact that in the former case the wine is permitted, even though the Yisrael still owes the Nochri money, that it is only if the Nochri actually has a claim on the wine, that it is forbidden.

(a) Rav Papa interprets the ruling in our Mishnah, that if a Nochri falls into a wine-pit and comes up, the wine may be sold to mean - that he comes up dead, because, if he were alive, he would treat his salvation like a festival, and thank his god by stirring the wine, before climbing out.

(b) 'Kol Eilu Hayah Ma'aseh ve'Amru Yimacher. ve'Rebbi Shimon Matir'. Rav Ada bar Ahavah blessed Rebbi Shimon - because he was impressed with the fact that whatever Rebbi permits, he permits to drink, and what he forbids, he forbids even be'Hana'ah (making the ruling easier to remember).

(c) Various Amora'im rule like Rebbi Shimon. The Sugya's final ruling however, is - 've'Ein Halachah ke'Rebbi Shimon'.

(a) The principle that Rav Ashi teaches us concerning the Din of Yayin Nesech is - 'Kol she'be'Zav Tamei, be'Oved-Kochavim Oseh Yayin Nesech; Kol she'be'Zav Tahor, be'Oved-Kochavim Eino Oseh Yayin Nesech'.

(b) He cannot possibly mean to include the Din of 'Heset' (moving the wine) in his ruling - because we just learned on the previous Amud that the wine in the flask that a Nochri is carrying is permitted, even though if a Zav were carrying it, it would be Tamei.

(c) What he *is* therefore coming to teach us is - the Din of throwing something into a wine-pit or into a barrel of wine, which in the case of a Zav, would not render wine (or whatever it was that was struck by the object) Tamei. Similarly, the wine in the wine-pit or the barrel, is not Yayin Nesech.

(a) Rav Huna (or Ravina) queries Rav Ashi from our Mishnah 'Natal es ha'Chavis ve'Zarkah ba'Chamaso le'Bor ... ve'Hichshiru' - implying that if he did so when he was not angry, the wine would be Yayin Nesech.

(b) The reason for the Tana's lenient ruling in the case of 'Zarkah ba'Chamaso' is - because the Nochri is clearly merely giving vent to his emotions, and has not the least intention of being Menasech the wine.

(c) To reconcile this with his ruling, Rav Ashi explains - that the Nochri did not actually throw the barrel, in the regular sense of the word, but rolled it into the wine-pit (in which case he was still touching the barrel when it fell into the pit).

Next daf


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