Avodah Zarah 76 – Purifying a Knife

To purify a non-kosher knife, one wipes it, and it is clean. Rav Ukva bar Chama explained this to mean that he sticks the knife into the ground ten times. In addition, the ground has to be hard and not ploughed, and the knife – smooth, without dents. This only suffices to purify the knife to be used with cold foods.

Mar Yehudah and Bati bar Tuvi were sitting at a meal with the Persian king Shapoor. They brought an etrog to the king. The king sliced a piece and ate it. Then he sliced a piece and handed it to Bati. Then he stood up and stuck the knife into the ground ten times, cut a piece, and gave it to Mar Yehuda. Bati took offence and said, “And this person (meaning himself), is he not a Jew?” The king answered, “I know about Mar Yehudah that he is observant, but I don't know this about you.”

In another version the king said, “Remember what you did last night?” It was a custom to send the guest a woman, and Mar Yehudah did not accept his gift, but Bati did. In truth, Bati was a half-slave, and he was allowed to have relations with that woman who was non-Jewish, but the king did not know that.

End of Mesechet Avodah Zarah

Art: Kamal-Al-Molk - Persian Musicians

Avodah Zarah 75 – Purifying Winepress and Vessels

A stone winepress was usually covered with hot pitch, but to counteract the effect of fumes, wine was added to the pitch. Therefore, an idol worshipper's winepress could not be used by a Jew, but first had to be “dried.” Drying meant purifying it with water and ashes. If the winepress was made of wood, which required more pitch, then Rabbi Yehudah the Prince still says that all that is necessary is that it be “dried,” but the Sages require removing the pitch. If it was made of earthenware, then even if he removed the pitch, it is still prohibited, because earthenware walls absorb more wine.

If one buys food utensils from idol worshippers, then the utensils that are used only with cold food require only an immersion in the mikveh. Those that are used with hot liquids are purified in hot water. Those that are used with fire without liquid are purged in a flame. The spit and grill are purged in a flame.

Art: Felix Edouard Vallotto - Still Life with Large Earthenware Jug

Avodah Zarah 74 – Dry Mixtures

The laws of dry mixtures are different from those of liquids. When prohibited substances are mixed with permitted ones of the same kind, for example, prohibited grapes with permitted ones, the prohibited substance becomes nullified in a simple majority, one part in two. When it is mixed with permitted substances of a different kind, for example, grapes and olives, it is nullified in the ratio of one-to-sixty.

Following is a list of exceptions to the above rule: a sealed barrel of libation wine mixed even with a thousand barrels of kosher wine, an idol, an ox condemned to be stoned, red heifer, birds offered by a person cured from tzaraat, hair of a nazir, firstborn male donkey, a piece of meat cooked with milk, Yom Kippur goat sent to Azazel, and unconsecrated animals slaughtered in the Temple Courtyard. All these, mixed with any amount of similar items, make the whole group prohibited.

Art: Albrecht Durer - Self-Portrait at 26

Avodah Zarah 73 - Lenient Opinions About Wine

Libation wine is prohibited for benefit. Some say that the same prohibition applies to today's regular wines, but others maintain that nowadays, since idolatrous libations have fallen into disuse, the ordinary wine of non-Jews is prohibited only for drinking but not for benefit.

A minute quantity of libation wine mixed with kosher wine makes the mixture forbidden for benefit. Again, some say that today this stringency does not apply, and kosher wine is permitted unless the new wine imparts its own flavor to the mixture.

Rabbi Yochanan said that if one pours libation wine, even all day, from a small pitcher into a cistern of kosher wine, each successive drop of libation wine is nullified, and the wine in the cistern is permitted. Not only that, but each nullified drop is now viewed as kosher wine and it turn nullifies subsequent drops of libation wine.

Earlier we learned that any amount of prohibited substance, mixed with its own kind, for example, wine into wine, prohibits the kosher substance. Some say, however, that this stringent rule is true only for libation wine, but for all other substances it is nullified if it is less than one-sixtieth.

Art: Edouard Manet - Boy with a Pitcher 1862

Avodah Zarah 72 - Pouring the Wine

If a Jew took a funnel and measured wine into an idol worshipper's flask, and then took the funnel and measured wine into a Jew's flask, then the rule is as follows: if at the bottom of the funnel there is a small wine retainer, that is, if the bottom of the funnel has a protruding lip which retains a drop of the wine poured through in its previous use, then the wine that was poured through the funnel in the Jew's flask is prohibited.

Those who consider a stream connecting two vessels as an actual connection, transmitting the prohibition, explain that the bottom of the idolater's flask contained minute amounts of libation wine. Through the stream connection, the wine in the funnel also become prohibited, and through it – the next wine that was poured. Those who say that the stream is not a significant connection, explain that the funnel was touching the wine on the bottom.

If an idolater pours wine from a bottle into a cup, the wine in the cup is prohibited, but the wine remaining in the bottle is permitted.

Art: Joaquin Sorolla y Bastida - Elderly Castellano Pouring Wine

Avodah Zarah 71 – Soldiers in the City

If a troop of soldiers entered a city and came into a Jews house, then the status of the wine is determined as follows: if this occurred during peacetime, then any open barrels found there are prohibited, while sealed ones are permitted. The opened barrels are prohibited because of their possible contact with the marauding soldiers. The sealed barrels, though, are permitted, because the soldiers, being afraid of no one, would not bother resealing the barrels they had broken into. If this occurred during wartime, then both open and sealed barrels are permitted, because the soldiers do not have time to make libations to idols.

Jewish workers, whom their idolatrous employer wants to pay with libation wine, can tell him, “Give us money instead.” However, once the wine entered their possession, they are forbidden to derive benefit from it.

If a Jew sells his wine to an idol worshipper, then if he set the price before the idol worshipper measured the wine, its purchase money is permitted; but if the idol worshipper measured before setting the price, the wine has become libation wine, and its purchase money is prohibited for benefit.

Art: Willem Cornelisz. Duyster - Soldiers beside a Fireplace

Avodah Zarah 70 – Alibi for Entering a Wine Cellar

If an idolatrous harlot is having a meal with Jews, Jewish wine at the table is permitted, because they are interested in her, but not in making a libation of wine. On the other hand, if a Jewish harlot is having a meal with idol worshippers, her wine is prohibited, because she will not protest if they pour her wine as libation.

If an idolater is found standing among the barrels of Jewish wine, then Rava's rule applies: if the idolater has a way to evade a charge of burglary – the wine is forbidden, and if not, the wine is permitted. If an idolater has an alibi to explain why he was found there, he will have the desire and the presence of mind to make a libation. Even if the alibi is not perfect, as long as it saves him from being prosecuted for burglary – this is enough, and he will be willing to take the risk that someone may discover him while touching the wine. Without an alibi, he will be too nervous to make a libation, and we presume that he entered for a different purpose. The Talmud gives twelve cases explaining this rule.

Art: Gabriel Metsu - Portrait of the Artist with His Wife Isabella de Wolff in a Tavern

Avodah Zarah 69 – The Saga of Mouse Continued

Assuming that the flavor that a mouse gives to beer is beneficial, what is the law if it falls into vinegar? There was such a case in Rav Kahana's household, and he prohibited it. Do we see from here that the mouse indeed gives a beneficial flavor, and that's why he prohibited it? – No, but in that case small pieces of the mouse remained in vinegar, and since one gets lashes for eating a smaller piece of a mouse than other non-kosher foods, he prohibited it for this reason.

If an idol worshipper was helping a Jew to transport jugs of wine and the Jew had to leave for some time, then the status of the wine depends on what did the Jew say. If he traveled up to a mile but did not inform the idol worshipper, then the wine is permitted. If, however, he told that he would be going far enough for the idol worshipper to bore a hole, patch it with clay, and for clay to have dried up, the wine is forbidden. Similar guidelines apply to an idol worshipper left on a boat, in a store, or at the table. Note that the final law does not agree with this level of suspicion.

Art: Frederick Childe Hassam - Carriage on Rue Bonaparte

Avodah Zarah 68 – Mouse That Fell Into Beer

There was a case when a mouse fell into beer. It stayed there soaking for more than 24 hours, and was therefore considered as if cooked, imparting flavor to the beer. Rav ruled it forbidden.

The student related this to Rav Sheshet and told him that Rav must consider forbidden flavor that ruins the taste as forbidden. “Nor necessarily,” - told them Rav Sheshet. In general, Rav may consider such food permitted. Only here, since people are generally disgusted by mice, the Torah, by prohibiting mice, told us to avoid even its flavor. The students told him that they don't see this logic in such cases as semen, and furthermore, Rav Shimi said that in some places they go on the tables of kings.

Therefore, Rava concluded that when a forbidden flavor ruins the taste, the dish remains kosher. Here, however, he was not sure why Rav prohibited the beer. It could be that Rav held that bad flavor made it non-kosher, and then the law would not agree with Rav. It could also be that Rav considered the flavor of mouse improving the beer, and in this case the law about prohibited flavor would agree with him.

Art: Willem Van Aelst - Still-Life with Mouse and Candle

Avodah Zarah 67 – Forbidden Flavor that Ruins the Dish

Whenever a forbidden substance gets mixed into a kosher dish and it improves the taste of the dish, the result is prohibited; however, when it has an adverse effect on the permitted food, the dish is permitted. The forbidden substance should not be found in large quantities, so that by eating his meal within a short time (about 2-3 minutes), one does not ingest more than an olive volume of the forbidden food. Also, if the prohibited food, when added to a cold dish, improves it, and adds the bad taste only after cooking, the permit does not apply.

A forbidden food that is absorbed into the walls of a cooking utensil becomes slightly rancid after a day. Since it adds bad flavor to anything cooked in this utensil, it follows that kosher food cooked in it does not become prohibited – this is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Meir, however, says that even when the forbidden flavor is detrimental, it still prohibits the dish.

Art: Cornelis Jacobsz Delff - Still Life with Kitchen Utensils

Avodah Zarah 66 – What Makes a Mixture Prohibited

If fermented libation wine is mixed with grapes, all agree that since their tastes are distinct, the libation wine makes the grapes forbidden only if one can feel its taste.

If new wine - grape juice within the first thirty days – is mixed with grapes, Abaye says that any amount of wine makes it forbidden, because they have the same taste, and when two foods have the same taste, any amount of forbidden substance makes the mixture forbidden. Rava, however, says that we consider the names, and grapes and wine have different names. Therefore, we consider the two foods different in nature, and if there are 60 times less wine than grapes, the mixture is permitted.

Conversely, if wine vinegar and beer vinegar become mixed, Abaye says that we follow the taste, and since the two tastes are different, the forbidden one is nullified if there is 60 times more of permitted one. Rava still considers the name, and since both are called vinegar, any amount of forbidden vinegar makes the mixture forbidden.

Art: Edward Ladell - A Still Life of Black Grapes, a Peach, a Plum, Hazelnuts, a Metal Casket and a Wine Glass on a Carved Wooden Ledge

Avodah Zarah 65 – When Libation Wine Spills

If libation wine fell onto grapes, one can rinse them off with water, and they are permissible; however, if the grapes were cracked, they are forbidden – because the wine which falls on the grapes will seep through the cracks into the grapes themselves, and cannot be removed by rinsing.

If the wine falls onto figs or dates and there is enough of it to impart flavor, they are forbidden. In this case, the two substances have different tastes, and one can empirically ascertain whether the forbidden flavor is present. When the two substances taste the same, the permissible ratio is 1/60.

It once happened to Boethus ben Zunan that he brought dried figs onto a ship. A barrel of libation wine spilled onto them, and he asked the Sages, and they permitted the dried figs. That story does not contradict the rule above, because it is different in this: even though the taste of wine was detectable in the dried figs, it did not improve the taste but rather made it worse, and prohibited flavor that is to the detriment of the taste does not forbid the food.

Art: Luis Egidio Menendez or Melendez - Still Life With Figs 1746

Avodah Zarah 64 – Can One be Paid to Destroy Libation Wine?

They asked a question, “If an idol worshipper hires a Jewish worker to break barrels filled with libation wine, what is the law regarding his wage?” Do we say that since the worker temporarily desires the continued existence of the wine – so that he can be paid for destroying it - his wage is prohibited for benefit? Or perhaps, any action to destroy futility (idolatry) is permissible, and certainly the wage is permissible?

Said Rav Nachman, “Let him break the barrels and may a blessing come upon him!”

Can we support Rav Nachman from the ruling about mixed seeds: one is not allowed to weed the forbidden seed mixture, because he helps it grow. Rabbi Akiba makes one liable even for passively keeping the mixture. However, one is a allowed to accept a contract to uproot them. Now, this is parallel to the wine case, since for a time the worker wants the seeds to exist - until he uproots them - and it is allowed! This indeed supports Rav Nachman.

Art: Giovanni Fattori - The red barrels

Avodah Zarah 63 – Learning Shemittah Laws from Harlot's Payment

The prohibition of libation wine is extended to payments received for working with it. In a related incident, the members of the household of Rabbi Yannai borrowed shemittah produce from the poor and repaid them with ordinary produce in the eighth year. They did this to benefit the poor, for it allowed the poor to trade their soon-to-be-unusable shemittah produce and receive usable eighth-year produce in return - since the original produce was no longer extant when the loan was repaid. Thus, unlike the wine case, the connection between produce and payment was broken.

They asked Rabbi Yochanan is this was done correctly, and he proved that it was, from the laws of a harlot's payment. The rule is that if one gave the harlot an animal in payment and afterward cohabited with her, or if he cohabited with her, and afterward gave her an animal in payment, her payment is permitted, and she can bring it on the Altar. Why? Because at the time she acquires the animal, the cohabitation is no longer extant – and the case of shemittah produce is the same.

Art: Camille Pissarro - Peasant Woman with a Goat

Avodah Zarah 62 – Loophole for Working with Libation Wine

If an idol worshipper hires a Jewish worker to do work for him in handling libation wine, either to pour it into barrels or to transport the barrels, the worker’s wage is prohibited for benefit. However, if he hired the worker to do other work for him, then even if he said to him, “Transport this barrel of libation wine from one place to another,” the worker’s wage is permitted.

If an idol worshipper hires a Jew’s donkey to transport libation wine on it, the rental fee is prohibited for benefit. However, if he hired the donkey to ride on, then even if the idol worshipper later placed his flask of wine on it, the fee is permitted.

Both laws are a stringency that the Sages enacted against continued existence of idol worship.

Art: Edward Robert Smythe - Donkeys in a Glade

Avodah Zarah 61 – Contract to Make Kosher Wine

Consider the following: a Jew contracts with an idolater to press the idolater's grapes into kosher wine and sell it to Jews, with the understanding that he would pay the idolater for his grapes only after selling the wine. Until then, he stores it in the idolater’s premises. To make sure that the idolater does not make a libation of this wine, the Jew stores it in a storage room open into the public domain, so that anyone inside can be observed. This helps if the town is inhabited by both Jews and idolaters, and a Jew is likely to look inside at any time. Otherwise, the Jew must appoint a guardian. The guardian does not need to be there at all time, but can go out and come in intermittently.

Furthermore, the idolater must write a receipt stating, “I have received money from you as a payment for the produce,” so that the wine is in full control of the Jew and he can remove it any time that he wants. The obligation is thus converted to a regular loan, and there is no lien on the wine. With this, the wine is permitted.

Art: Gustav Vermehren - Farmhouse Interior with an Open Door

Avodah Zarah 60 – Idolater Who Fell Into Wine

If an idolater was found standing beside a Jew's wine cistern, then he may have touched the wine. On the other hand, he knows that by touching the wine he will ruin it for the Jew and may have to pay. Therefore, normally it can be assumed that he did not touch the wine, out of fear of being discovered. However, if he has a loan for that wine against the Jew, he can always justify his touching it, and in that case the wine is prohibited for benefit, because of this possibility.

If an idolater fell into a wine cistern and ascended from it, or he measured it with the reed, or he flicked a hornet out of it with a reed – all of these cases actually happened, and the Sages allowed the wine to be sold to idolaters. Rabbi Shimon permits this wine even for drinking, because it will not lead to socializing.

If an idolater took a cask and in a fit of anger threw it into a cistern, the wine is permitted even for consumption.

Art: Ferdinand Hodler - The Angry One

Avodah Zarah 59 – Transporting the Grapes

They asked Rav Kahana, may an idol worshipper transport grapes to the winepress?

We have previously learned that the juice of grapes cannot be prohibited until they are crushed in the treading basin and the wine begins to flow there. The intent of the question was only if there was some additional restriction by the Sages regarding this.

Rav Kahana answered that it was indeed prohibited if the carrier also emptied the baskets into the vat, based on the maxim of “Go away! Go away!” we say to a Nazir. In other words, stay far from forbidden items. They asked them, “But we learned that if he did it, the wine is allowed?!” He answered, “I only meant that it should not be done in the first place, but if he did it – the wine is permitted.”

If an idolater purposely touched the wine, with the intent to make it prohibited for the Jew, then, even though ordinarily one cannot sell this wine anymore, it is permitted to accept the money from the person who touched it – because he is not buying the wine but rather compensating for the damage he has caused.

Art: Heinrich Wilhelm Truebner - With wine from Rome

Avodah Zarah 58 – Two Contradictory Rulings about Wine, Both Correct

Rabbi Yochanan ben Arza and Rabbi Yose ben Nehorai were sitting and drinking wine. A waiter, whom they took to be a Jew, came by, and they asked him to pour them a drink. After he poured the wine into theirs cups, it transpired that he was an idol worshipper. One of the Rabbis ruled the wine prohibited even for benefit, while the other one ruled it permitted even for drinking.

Said Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, “The one who prohibited did well, and the one who permitted also did well.”

The one who prohibited reasoned as follows: the idolater thought, “Is it conceivable that such distinguished Rabbis such as these would drink beer? - No! It must be wine!” - and having ascertained this, he intended to make a libation for his idol.

The one who permitted reasoned as follows: the idolater thought, “It is conceivable that such distinguished Rabbis would be drinking wine and ask me, an idolater, to pour wine for them? - No! It must be beer!” Since he knew that it was wine, he did not make a libation.

Art: Friedrich Friedlander - The Wine Tasting or A Good Vintage

Avodah Zarah 57 – Postponed Ruling about Wine

There was an incident in Nahardea in which a Jew and an idolater trod together wine belonging to a Jew. The hands of the idolater did not touch the wine, but his feet obviously did, and Shmuel postponed his ruling on the case until three festivals have passed. Why? It was customary for scholars to assemble at the academy on Pesach, Shavuot, and Sukkot, and Shmuel waited to find a scholar who would know of a ruling that supported the decision he wanted to render. What could his decision have been?

There were three opinions on the matter, as follows: if an idol worshipper inserted his hand or foot to measure the wine, obviously not to make a libation, the majority says that it is prohibited for consumption but can be sold; Rabbi Nathan forbids if for benefit if it was touched by hand, but not by foot; Rabbi Shimon allows it for consumption.

If Shmuel wanted to rule as majority, he did not need any support. He could not rule it forbidden like Rabbi Nathan – because Rabbi Nathan never forbade it when touched by foot. It must therefore be that Shmuel wanted to rule it allowed for consumption like Rabbi Shimon, but needed additional support for this minority opinion.

Art: John Rogers Herbert - "The Wine That Maketh Glad The Heart Of Man" Psalm 104