Avodah Zarah, Daf Lamed Bet, Part 3

 

Introduction

In yesterday s section we learned that Rabban Gamaliel drank Jewish wine that had been placed in non-Jewish flasks but that the other sages did not agree with this practice. Today s sugya cites a contradictory report.

 

ולא הודו לו: ורמינהי יין הבא ברוקבאות של עובדי כוכבים אסור בשתיה ומותר בהנאה העיד שמעון בן גודע לפני בנו של ר"ג על ר"ג ששתה ממנו בעכו והודו לו

מאי לא הודו לו דקאמר התם כל סייעתו אבל בנו מודי ליה

איבעית אימא גודא לחוד וגודע לחוד:

 

[It was stated above:] But they did not agree to this practice. A contradiction was raised: Wine contained in leather bottles of non-Jews is forbidden for drinking but permitted for deriving benefit. Shimon b. Gudda testified in the presence of R. Gamaliel’s son that R. Gamaliel drank of such in Acco, and they did agree to this practice.

What did it mean there they did not agree to this practice? His colleagues did not agree, but his son did agree.

Or, if you wish, it may be said that Gudda is one and Gudda is another.

 

There are two solutions to the contradiction between these two baraitot.

According to the first solution, the earlier baraita meant that the other sages disagree with Rabban Gamaliel, but Rabban Gamaliel s own son did agree with him, and that is what is meant by the above baraita.

The other solution is that there are two different rabbis who transmit this incident each with almost the same name, but different. The first is Shimon ben Gudda with an aleph at the end and the second is Shimon ben Gudda with an ayin at the end. I ll admit that this is a strained solution, but nevertheless, Jews probably did pronounce the ayin and the aleph different.

 

ועורות לבובין: תנו רבנן איזהו עור לבוב כל שקרוע כנגד הלב וקדור כמין ארובה יש עליו קורט דם אסור אין עליו קורט דם מותר אמר רב הונא לא שנו אלא שלא מלחו אבל מלחו אסור אימא מלחו העברתו:

 

Skins pierced at the animal’s heart: Our rabbis taught: What is a skin pierced at the heart? Any skin that is torn opposite the heart and is round like an aperture. If there is a drop of blood on it, it is forbidden, but if it has no such drop of blood it is permitted.

R. Huna said: That is only if it has not been treated with salt, but if it has been treated with salt, it is forbidden in either case, for we can say that the salt may have removed it.

 

The mishnah taught that it is prohibited to derive benefit from skins pierced at the heart. It is assumed that such skins were part of idolatrous practice. This section defines precisely what this heart-pierced skin is.

The presence of the blood is necessary to determine whether the hole was made while the animal was alive. If the hole was made after its death, then there should be no blood and it is permitted. Unless the skin was salted in which case we can assume that the salt removed the blood.