Avodah Zarah, Daf Nun Het, Part 1

 

Introduction

In the story at the end of yesterday s daf there was a dispute over a case where a non-Jew touched some wine out of anger to demonstrate to the storekeeper that it was actually wine. Rava permitted the selling of such wine whereas the two R. Hunas did not. This week s daf continues where last week left off.

 

איקלע רב הונא בריה דר"נ למחוזא א"ל רבא לרב אליקים שמעיה טרוק טרוק גלי דלא ניתו אינשי דניטריד על לגביה א"ל כי האי גוונא מאי א"ל אסור אפילו בהנאה והא מר הוא דאמר שיכשך אין עושה יין נסך

אימר דאמרי אנא לבר מדמיה דההוא חמרא דמי דההוא חמרא מי אמרי

 

R. Huna son of R. Nahman came Mehoza, and Rava said to his attendant, R. Eliakim, Bolt the doors so that nobody shall enter to disturb us. [R. Huna son of R. Nahman] entered the room. He asked him, In such circumstances what is the law?

He replied, It is forbidden even for use.

[R. Huna exclaimed], But was it not the master who declared that such shaking does not make wine nesekh!

[He responded], I was saying except for the value of that wine. But the value of that wine, I did not say.

 

For a reason not entirely clear, Rava does not want R. Huna b. Nahman to enter into his room. But he enters anyway. R. Huna b. Nahman asks Rava how he rules in a case where the non-Jew shook the wine but did not do so with the intention of libating. Rava, against what he said earlier, claims that it is forbidden for usage. R. Huna responds that Rava himself said that such shaking does not make the wine yayin nesekh. Rava responds that he agrees that the wine that was actually shaken is yayin nesekh. But since the storekeeper threw the wine into a barrel with unshaken wine, he need not lose the value of the entire barrel. He may sell the barrel but just reduce the value of the wine thrown in.

The Tosafot have another reading of this section. They read that it is not R. Huna son of R. Nahman who comes to Mehoza but R. Nahman, Rava s teacher. This helps explain why Rava is afraid of him he fears that he is contradicting his teacher. Rava now asks R. Nahman for the ruling, and R. Nahman responds that it is forbidden to even use such wine. Rava then responds by claiming that R. Nahman said that such shaking does not make yayin nesekh. R. Nahman concludes by saying that the value of the wine actually shaken is prohibited.

This is a much easier reading of the Talmud but it is not the text that we have in front of us, which follows Rashi s reading.