Avodah Zarah, Daf Nun Het, Part 4

 

Introduction

Another instance where a non-Jew touches some wine and some rabbis disagree concerning its status.

 

רבי יוחנן בן ארזא ור’ יוסי בן נהוראי הוו יתבו וקא שתו חמרא

אתא ההוא גברא אמרו ליה תא אשקינן

לבתר דרמא לכסא איגלאי מילתא דעובד כוכבים הוא

חד אסר אפי’ בהנאה וחד שרי אפי’ בשתייה

 

R. Yohanan b. Arza and R. Yose b. Nehorai were once sitting and drinking wine. A man came. They said to him, Come, pour some for us.

After he had poured it into the glass, it became known that he was a non-Jew.

One of them prohibited it even for benefit, while the other permitted it even for drinking.

 

The story is fascinating we can see that the rabbis didn t always know who was Jewish and who was not. After having poured the wine, the rabbis debate whether Jews may drink the wine, meaning it is totally permissible, or whether they may not even sell it, meaning it is totally forbidden.

 

אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי מאן דאסר שפיר אסר ומאן דשרי שפיר שרי

מאן דאסר מימר אמר סלקא דעתיה דרבנן כי הני שיכרא קא שתו אלא ודאי האי חמרא הוא ונסכיה

 

R. Joshua b. Levi said: He who prohibited it acted rightly and he who permitted it acted rightly.

The one who prohibited would have said: [The non-Jew] must have said to himself, Would I think that such rabbis drink beer? Rather, it surely must be wine! And he libated it.

 

R. Joshua b. Levi tries to justify both positions by getting into the mindset of the non-Jew. The one who prohibits believes that the non-Jew would just assume that rabbis drink wine because wine is the preferred beverage of the higher levels of society. Since he assumed it was wine, he probably libated.

Please allow me a comment here. Many of you know how much I love beer I m a true beer snob. One of the things that I love about beer is that it is a working-class beverage. We can see that this was true even in the talmudic period.

 

מאן דשרי שפיר שרי מימר אמר ס"ד דרבנן כי הני חמרא קא שתו וא"ל לדידי תא אשקינן אלא ודאי שיכרא הוא קא שתו ולא נסכיה

 

He who permitted it acted rightly. [The non-Jew] must have said to himself, Would it occur to such rabbis as these to drink wine and ask me to pour for them? It must be beer they are drinking! and he did not libate it.

 

The one who permitted it also made a reasonable assumption. The non-Jew would have known that rabbis would not let idolaters pour wine for them. He, after all, did not know that they did not know that he was not Jewish (read this sentence a few times). So when the rabbis asked him to pour for them, the non-Jew thought it was beer. Since he did not know it was wine, the wine is permitted. Note that this seems to contradict an earlier story, where a non-Jew shook some liquid to see if it was wine. According to this sugya, if the non-Jew does not know it s wine, the wine is permitted.

 

והא קא חזי

בליליא

והא קא מרח ליה

בחדתא

 

But he could have seen [whether it was wine or beer]! It was night. But he could have smelled it! It was new.

 

The sugya here explains why the non-Jew did not know that it was not wine. It was night and it was new beer.

 

והא קא נגע ביה בנטלא וה"ל מגע עובד כוכבים שלא בכוונה ואסור

לא צריכא דקא מוריק אורוקי וה"ל כחו שלא בכוונה וכל כחו שלא בכוונה לא גזרו ביה רבנן

 

But he must have touched it with the drawing cup, so it is a case where a non-Jew touched [wine] unintentionally and it is prohibited!

No; it is necessary [to understand it as a case] where he merely poured it out, and so it is a circumstance of him acting on it without intention, and in any case where the non-Jew acted on it without intention the rabbis did not decree that it is prohibited.

 

The Talmud raises another difficulty. If the non-Jew drew the wine from the casket, then he touched the wine with the drawing cup. And even though he did not know that it was wine, he still directly acted upon it, and it should be prohibited.

The resolution is that the non-Jew did not touch it directly. He only poured it. And according to this sugya, there is a principle that whenever a non-Jew pours wine without intention (meaning he does not know it is wine), the wine is permitted. Note that in this case there are two reasons to be lenient: 1) he does not know that it is wine meaning it is unintentional; 2) he did not touch it. He only poured it.