Avodah Zarah, Daf Lamed Aleph, Part 1
Introduction
Today s mishnah turns to the subject of wine owned or possessed by non-Jews. May Jews derive benefit from such wine? May they drink it? This is a topic that will be dealt with briefly here, and then with great intensity later in the tractate.
א"ר אסי א"ר יוחנן משום ר’ יהודה בן בתירא שלשה יינות הן יין נסך אסור בהנאה ומטמא טומאה חמורה בכזית סתם יינם אסור בהנאה ומטמא טומאת משקין ברביעית המפקיד יינו אצל עובד כוכבים אסור בשתיה ומותר בהנאה
R. Assi said in the name of R. Yohanan who said it in the name of R. Judah ben Batera: There are three kinds of wine:
[1] Wine that has been libated. It is forbidden to derive any benefit from this wine, and the quantity of the size of an olive causes serious impurity;
[2] Ordinary wine belonging to non-Jews, from which it is likewise forbidden to derive any benefit, and a quarter [of a log] of which renders drinks [or foods] impure.
[3] One who deposits his wine with a non-Jew, it is forbidden to drink it, but it is permitted to derive benefit from it.
R. Judah b. Batera classifies three different types of wine. The first is wine that has actually been libated. Such wine is considered to be a by-product of idol worship. It is forbidden to derive any benefit from this wine. And it causes impurity.
Wine that belongs to non-Jews is not considered to have been involved in idolatry. But it is still forbidden to derive benefit from it, and of course to drink it. Its defiling properties are lesser it only defiles food and drink.
If the wine belongs to a Jew, but the non-Jew was holding on to the wine, then the Jew may derive benefit from the wine, but he may not drink the wine.
Note that there seem to be two issues combined here. The first is contact with items used in idolatrous ritual. This would apply either to wine that had actually been libated, or to wine that might have been libated. The second issue is preventing contact with non-Jews. Wine simply owned by a non-Jew does not need to be treated as an idolatrous product. But if the goal of this halakhah is to prevent fraternization, then prohibiting any contact would make some sense.
והתנן המפקיד פירותיו אצל עובד כוכבים הרי הן כפירותיו של עובד כוכבים לשביעית ולמעשר
כגון שייחד לו קרן זוית
If one deposits his fruit with an idolater it is considered as if it were the idolater’s own fruit as regards tithes or Sabbatical year’s produce.
In our instance he assigned a separate corner to it.
The question at hand is whether one holding on to a deposit belonging to another is considered to be the deposit s owner (even a temporary one). The earlier baraita seemed to say no that is why it is not prohibited to derive benefit from the wine. But this mishnah (from Sheviit) says that the produce is considered to belong to the non-Jew and therefore it is not subject to the laws of tithes or the Sabbatical year.
The resolution is that in the case of the wine, he assigned it a separate corner, and thus did not touch it.
אי הכי בשתיה נמי לישתרי דהא רבי יוחנן אקלע לפרוד אמר כלום יש משנת בר קפרא תנא ליה ר’ תנחום דמן פרוד המפקיד יינו אצל עובד כוכבים מותר בשתיה קרי עליה (קהלת יא, ג) מקום שיפול העץ שם יהו שם יהו ס"ד אלא שם יהו פירותיו
In that case it should be permitted to drink it as well! For when R. Yohanan came to Parud he asked if there was any teaching (mishnah) of Bar-Kappara, and R. Tanhum of Parud quoted to him [the following]: Wine which had been deposited with an idolater is permissible for drinking. He applied to him the verse, In the place where the tree falls, there shall it be. There it shall be how can that be? But it means that there shall its fruit be.
If the non-Jew set aside a special corner for the wine, then why shouldn t the Jew be allowed to drink it? The Talmud bolsters the question with a story about R. Yohanan coming to Parud. There he asks R. Tanhum to a halakhah in the name of his teacher, Bar Kappara. The halakhah that is quoted contradicts what was said above. As an aside, R. Yohanan is happy to hear the teaching and considers him a proper student of Bar Kappara. In any case, we now have contradictory tannaitic sources.
א"ר זירא לא קשיא הא ר"א הא רבנן דתניא אחד הלוקח ואחד השוכר בית בחצירו של עובד כוכבים ומלאוהו יין ומפתח או חותם ביד ישראל ר"א מתיר וחכמים אוסרין.
א"ר חייא בריה דרבי חייא בר נחמני א"ר חסדא אמר רב ואמרי לה אמר רב חסדא אמר זעירי ואמרי לה א"ר חסדא אמר לי אבא בר חמא הכי אמר זעירי הלכה כר"א
R. Zera said: There is no contradiction: the one is according to the opinion of R. Eliezer and the other according to that of the rabbis, For it has been taught: If one buys or rents a house in a court of an idolater and stores wine in it, and the key or seal is in the charge of an Israelite: R. Eliezer permits it, but the Sages forbid it.
R. Hiyya the son of R. Hiyya b. Nahmani said in the name of R. Hisda [who said it] in the name of Rav (and some say that R. Hisda said it in the name of R. Ze’iri, while others say that R. Hisda said, I was told by Aba b. Harina that Ze’iri said it: The halakhah follows R. Eliezer.
R. Zera solves the difficulty by ascribing the baraita that prohibits to the rabbis and the baraita that permits to R. Eliezer. However, R. Eliezer permits only if the Jew holds the key or the seal, such that it would be difficulty for the non-Jew to break into the wine.