Avodah Zarah, Daf Ayin Daled, Part 6

 

Introduction

Today s sugya continues to discuss how vessels used with wine are kashered.

 

אמר מר הגת והמחץ והמשפך של עובדי כוכבים רבי מתיר בניגוב וחכמים אוסרין

והאנן תנן של חרס אע"פ שקלף את הזפת הרי זו אסורה

אמר רבא סיפא דמתני’ אתאן לרבנן

 

The master said, As for the winepress, ladle and funnel belonging to a non-Jew, Rabbi permits them after scouring, whereas the Sages prohibit them.

But haven t we taught: If it was of earthenware, even though he peeled off the pitch it is prohibited!

Rava said: This last clause of our Mishnah comes to give the view of the Rabbis.

 

The mishnah rules that earthenware vessels must be peeled in order to kasher them. This is the view of the rabbis. Rabbi [Judah Hanasi] would say that scouring is sufficient.

דרש רבא נעוה ארתחו

 

Rava expounded: [As for a tank] scald it!

 

Rava says that a tank, which probably is another word for the vat into which the wine flows, must be scalded with hot water to kasher it.

רבא כי הוה משדר גולפי להרפניא סחיף להו אפומייהו וחתים להו אבירצייהו קסבר כל דבר שמכניסו לקיום אפילו לפי שעה גזרו ביה רבנן

 

When Rava sent [empty] jars to Harpania he placed them mouth downwards [in sacks] and sealed them on their hems. For he held that any vessel into which [wine] is put for storage [by a non-Jew] even temporarily the rabbis decreed against.

 

Rava was sending empty jars from his place to other Jews in Harpania. He sealed these jars up well (some sort of double-seal) for he feared that the non-Jews with whom he was sending them would use them. Rava was of the opinion that just as the rabbis decreed against wine belonging to non-Jews, so too they decreed against storage vessels used by non-Jews, even for a short period.

 

במה מנגבן רב אמר במים רבה בר בר חנה אמר באפר

רב אמר במים במים ולא באפר רבה בר בר חנה אמר באפר באפר ולא במים

אלא רב אמר במים והוא הדין לאפר רבה בר בר חנה אמר לאפר והוא הדין למים ולא פליגי הא ברטיבתא הא ביבשתא

 

With what does one scour them?

Rav said: With water; Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said: With ashes.

Rav said with water: With water and not with ashes?

Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said with ashes: With ashes and not with water?

Rather Rav said with water and with ashes, and Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said with ashes and with water.

And they do not dispute, since one was referring to what is dry and the other to what is moist.

 

How does one scour earthenware vessels? While it might seem that Rav and Rabbah b. Hanah disagree, the Talmud believes that they do not. Both say that one needs ashes (a cleansing agent) and water. If the vat is wet, first he puts some ashes and then he cleans it off with water. If the vat is dry, he first puts some water and then the ashes clean it off.

 

איתמר בי רב משמיה דרב אמרי תרתי תלת ושמואל אמר תלת ד’

בסורא מתנו הכי בפומבדיתא מתנו בי רב אמרי משמיה דרב תלת ד’ ושמואל אמר ד’ ה’

ולא פליגי מר קא חשיב מיא בתראי ומר לא קחשיב מיא בתראי

 

It has been stated: The School of Rav said in the name of Rav: [The number of processes is] two and three; and Shmuel said that it is three and four.

Thus they taught in Sura, but in Pumbedita they taught: The School of Rav said in the name of Rav: [The number of processes is] three and four; but Shmuel said that it is four and five.

And they do not dispute: The one master counts the final rinsing with water [as a separate process] whereas the other master does not count the final rinsing.

 

There are two layers of disputes here as to how many processes of rinsing and washing with ash are required for a wet winepress or a dry winepress (the former requires less because it is already moist). The first dispute is between Rav and Shmuel and the second dispute is between the schools of Sura and Pumbedita as to what the parameters of Rav and Shmuel s dispute was. The Talmud remarks that the latter version is not really a dispute because Rav does not count the final rinsing whereas Shmuel does. [I should note that there are other ways of explaining the last comment here].