Previous Folio / ‘Abodah Zarah Directory / Tractate List / Home / Navigate Site

Babylonian Talmud: Tractate ‘Abodah Zarah

Folio 69a

How is it if [a mouse] fell into vinegar?1  — R. Hillel said to R. Ashi: Such an incident happened with R. Kahana and he prohibited it. [R. Ashi] replied to him: In that case [the mouse] may have been dissolved into pieces.2  Rabina thought to apply here the standard of a hundred and one3  since it is not less than with the heave-offering in connection with which we learnt: A heave-offering [mixed with the non-holy] is neutralised when the proportion is one in a hundred.4  R. Tahlifa b. Giza said to Rabina: Perhaps [the case under discussion] is like spices of a heave-offering [which fell into] a pot of food the taste of which is not neutralised. R. Ahai estimated that with vinegar the proportion must be fifty [to one].5  R. Samuel the son of R. Ika estimated that with beer the proportion must be sixty [to one]. The legal decision in either case is sixty [to one], and it is so with all things prohibited by the Torah.

MISHNAH. IF A HEATHEN WAS CONVEYING JARS OF WINE TOGETHER WITH AN ISRAELITE FROM PLACE TO PLACE, AND IT MAY BE PRESUMED THAT [THE WINE] IS UNDER SUPERVISION, IT IS PERMITTED. BUT IF [THE ISRAELITE] INFORMED HIM THAT HE WAS GOING AWAY [AND HE WAS ABSENT A LENGTH OF TIME] SUFFICIENT FOR THE OTHER TO BORE A HOLE [IN A JAR], STOP IT UP AND [THE SEALING CLAY] TO BECOME DRY, [THE WINE IS PROHIBITED]. R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAYS: [A LENGTH OF TIME] SUFFICIENT FOR HIM TO OPEN A CASK,6  RESTOPPER IT AND [THE NEW STOPPER] TO BECOME DRY.7  IF [AN ISRAELITE] LEFT HIS WINE8  IN A WAGGON OR A SHIP WHILE HE WENT ALONG A SHORT CUT, ENTERED A TOWN AND BATHED, IT IS PERMITTED. BUT IF HE INFORMED HIM THAT HE WAS GOING AWAY [AND HE WAS ABSENT A LENGTH OF TIME] SUFFICIENT FOR THE OTHER TO BORE A HOLE, STOP IT UP AND [THE SEALING CLAY] TO BECOME DRY, [THE WINE IS PROHIBITED]. R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAYS: [A LENGTH OF TIME] SUFFICIENT FOR HIM TO OPEN A CASK, RESTOPPER IT AND [THE NEW STOPPER] TO BECOME DRY. IF [AN ISRAELITE] LEFT A HEATHEN IN HIS SHOP, ALTHOUGH HE KEPT GOING IN AND OUT, [THE WINE THERE] IS PERMITTED. BUT IF HE INFORMED HIM THAT HE WAS GOING AWAY [AND HE WAS ABSENT A LENGTH OF TIME] SUFFICIENT FOR THE OTHER TO BORE A HOLE, STOP IT UP AND [THE SEALING CLAY] TO BECOME DRY, [THE WINE IS PROHIBITED]. R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAYS: [A LENGTH OF TIME] SUFFICIENT FOR HIM TO OPEN A CASK, RESTOPPER IT AND [THE NEW STOPPER] TO BECOME DRY. IF HE WAS EATING WITH HIM AT A TABLE AND SET SOME FLAGONS UPON THE TABLE AND OTHERS UPON A SIDE-TABLE9  AND LEAVING THEM THERE WENT OUT, WHAT IS UPON THE TABLE IS PROHIBITED10  AND WHAT IS UPON THE SIDE-TABLE IS PERMITTED;11  AND SHOULD HE HAVE SAID TO HIM, 'MIX [SOME OF THE WINE WITH WATER] AND DRINK,' WHAT IS UPON THE SIDE-TABLE IS LIKEWISE PROHIBITED.12  OPENED CASKS13  ARE PROHIBITED, AND THE CLOSED ONES ARE PERMITTED [EXCEPT WHEN HE WAS ABSENT A LENGTH OF TIME] SUFFICIENT FOR [THE HEATHEN] TO OPEN, RESTOPPER AND [THE NEW STOPPER] TO BECOME DRY.

GEMARA. How is the phrase, IT MAY BE PRESUMED THAT [THE WINE] IS UNDER SUPERVISION to be defined? — As it has been taught: Behold a man's ass-drivers and workmen14  are laden with things which are ritually clean; and though he be more than a mil15  apart from them, his ritually clean things retain their state of purity; but if he said to them, 'Go on and I will follow you,' as soon as they are out of sight his ritually clean things lose their state of purity. What is the difference between the first and second circumstance [that one is permitted and the other prohibited]?16  — R. Isaac said: The first refers to when he purified his ass-drivers and workmen for the task.17  If that is so, it should apply also to the second clause!18  — An 'am ha-arez19  is not particular about the touch of his fellow.20  If that is so, it should apply also to the first clause!21  — Raba said:

Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files
  1. Do we say that the mouse does not affect the taste since it is so sharp?
  2. And R. Kahana prohibited the vinegar from fear that a piece might be swallowed. Therefore no answer to the question can be inferred from this incident.
  3. If the permitted quantity is a hundred times as much as the prohibited element, the mixture is allowed.
  4. V. Ter. IV, 7.
  5. Owing to its pungent flavour the proportion is halved, i.e., the quantity of vinegar must be fifty times as much as the bulk of the mouse, if the liquid is to be permitted.
  6. I.e., remove the clay stopper which is sealed on to the cask.
  7. R. Simeon does not accept the first teaching because, in his opinion, the new patch of clay in the side of the jar could easily be detected.
  8. In charge of a heathen. Since he is unaware how long the owner will be away, he is afraid to tamper with the jars.
  9. Delphica mensa.
  10. Because from the fact that he was eating with the Jew, he would assume that he had the right to drink some of the wine and by touching it he renders it nesek.
  11. [As it is unusual for a guest to help himself from the provisions on the side-table.]
  12. Acting upon the permission, he may have touched the wine on the side-table.
  13. In the room where the heathen had been eating with a Jew and received permission to drink some wine.
  14. Belonging usually to the 'Am-ha-arez class. Their touch would defile what is ritually clean.
  15. A thousand paces; and he cannot see at such a distance what they might do with the loads.
  16. Even in the first circumstance described, inasmuch as the men are carrying the load they must necessarily touch and defile it.
  17. Through immersion in a ritual bath.
  18. Being cleansed how could they defile the load?
  19. V. Glos.
  20. Who, being ritually unclean, would communicate defilement to the load; and since the owner is out of sight, the men would not be careful to avoid such contact.
  21. Because he could not watch what happened at a distance of a mil.

‘Abodah Zarah 69b

 It refers to when [the owner] could come upon them by some by-path.1  If that is so, it should apply also to the second clause! — Since he had told them, 'Go on and I will follow you,' their mind is at rest.2 

IF [AN ISRAELITE] LEFT A HEATHEN IN HIS SHOP etc. IF [AN ISRAELITE] LEFT HIS WINE IN A WAGGON OR A SHIP etc. [Both the circumstances] are necessary; for if he had only taught the case of a heathen [conveying jars of wine], since the man thought that perhaps [the Israelite] would come and observe him,3  but when [the wine is left] in a waggon or ship, conclude [that it must be prohibited because the heathen] could put the ship to sea and do whatever he wished [to the wine].4  If, however, he had only taught the instance [of wine being left] in a waggon or ship, [it might have been assumed that it was permitted] because the man would have thought, 'Perhaps [the owner] will come by another path or stand upon the bank and observe me,' but when a heathen [is left] in his shop, conclude [that it must be prohibited because] he could shut the door and do whatever he wished. Hence he informs us [that in such a circumstance the wine is not necessarily prohibited].

Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Johanan: The difference5  is over [a stopper of] lime,6  but with one of clay7  all agree [that he must have been absent a length of time] sufficient for him to open, restopper and [the new stopper] to become dry. Against this statement the following is quoted: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said to the Sages: But [if he bored a hole in a jar] cannot his stopping be detected either on the outside8  or the inside!9  This is all right if you maintain that there is difference of opinion [when the stopper is] of clay and hence [R. Simeon b. Gamaliel] teaches that the stopping can be detected either on the outside or the inside. If, on the other hand, you maintain that there is difference of opinion [when the stopper is] of lime, then it is all right as regards the inside since it can be known, but as regards the outside it cannot be known! — R. Simeon b. Gamaliel was uncertain what the Rabbis intended; so he spoke to them as follows: If you refer [to a stopper of] clay, then his stopping can be detected on the outside or the inside; but if you refer to one of lime, granted that it cannot be known on the outside, yet it can be known on the inside! [What was the answer of] the Rabbis? — Since it cannot be known on the outside, it would not occur to him to reverse [the stopper] and inspect it; or also at times [the new stopping] hardens.10

Raba said: The halachah agrees with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, since there is an anonymous Mishnah in accord with him; for we learn: IF HE WAS EATING WITH HIM AT A TABLE AND SET SOME FLAGONS UPON THE TABLE AND OTHERS UPON A SIDE-TABLE AND LEAVING THEM THERE WENT OUT, WHAT IS UPON THE TABLE IS PROHIBITED AND WHAT IS UPON THE SIDE-TABLE IS PERMITTED; AND SHOULD HE HAVE SAID TO HIM, 'MIX [SOME OF THE WINE WITH WATER] AND DRINK,' WHAT IS UPON THE SIDE-TABLE IS LIKEWISE PROHIBITED. OPENED CASKS ARE PROHIBITED, AND THE CLOSED ONES ARE PERMITTED [EXCEPT WHEN HE WAS ABSENT A LENGTH OF TIME] SUFFICIENT FOR [THE HEATHEN] TO OPEN, RESTOPPER AND [THE NEW STOPPER] TO BECOME DRY. Obviously [this teaching agrees with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel; so why does Raba mention the fact]! — You might have said that the whole of the passage was taught by R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. Hence we are informed [that it is not so].11  Now since we have established the fact that [the halachah] agrees with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, viz., we need not be concerned about the possibility of a hole being bored in a jar, and inasmuch as the halachah also agrees with R. Eliezer, viz., we need not be concerned about the possibility of the seal being forged,12  what is the reason that we do not nowadays leave [stoppered casks] in charge of a heathen? — On account of the vent.13

Raba said: If Israelites were reclining at table with a Gentile harlot, the wine is permitted because while lust would be strong in them

Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files
  1. The men would then be afraid to defile their load.
  2. They are not under observation and would be careless. Accordingly the phrase UNDER SUPERVISION means that the heathen is afraid to tamper with the wine because he might be observed by the owner.
  3. Tampering with the wine, and for this reason he would be afraid to do so, and consequently the wine is permitted.
  4. Therefore the Mishnah has to state this case separately, and draw a distinction between whether the owner informed or did not inform the heathen of his intention to be absent for a while.
  5. Between the Rabbis and R. Simeon b. Gamaliel in the Mishnah.
  6. Because this is white from the beginning, and a new stopper of this material could not be easily detected.
  7. This is of a dark colour at first, and only after several days becomes white. Tampering would be readily noticed.
  8. The newness of the inserted material would be apparent.
  9. Even if the heathen smoothed the outside surface, he could not do this inside the jar; consequently the Jew could soon discover if anything was wrong by examining the stopper on the inside. If, then, R. Simeon holds that the new stopper can always be detected, why does he disagree with the Rabbis in the Mishnah?
  10. Both on top and bottom alike, so that detection is difficult.
  11. I.e., from 'If he was eating' is not part of R. Simeon's statement which precedes, although it harmonises with his view.
  12. V. supra 31a.
  13. Through which the fumes of the wine are allowed to escape. A heathen might draw off some of the wine through it. Another reading is shibba, 'plug'. This could be taken out and the wine interfered with.