Avodah Zarah, Daf Nun Zayin, Part 3

 

Introduction

Yesterday R. Shimi used a baraita as a difficulty against Rav s ruling, that wine touched by minor idolaters is considered yayin nesekh. Today Rav resolves that difficulty.

תרגמה אבני שפחות

 

[Rav] explained the teaching as referring to the children of female slaves.

 

Rav says that the baraita refers only to the children of female slaves. Slaves owned by a Jew are considered Jewish, and therefore these children are Jewish. Their touch does not render wine yayin nesekh. But the touch of non-Jewish minors does, including slaves bought from non-Jews before the slaves were circumcised and immersed.

הא וכן קאמר!

ארוקן ומדרסן.

הניחא למאן דאמר טמא אלא למ"ד טהור מאי איכא למימר?

 

But and similarly was stated!

That refers to their spittle and place of treading!

This works well according to the one who declared that they are impure, but according to the one who declared that they are pure what is there to say?

 

The problem is that the baraita seemed to say that slaves bought from non-Jews and children of female slaves from Jewish households are treated the same.

Rav answers that they are treated the same when it comes to the impurity of their spit and place of treading. But they are not treated the same when it comes to touching wine.

But there is still a problem. If the spit and place of treading of slaves bought from non-Jews is impure, it makes sense to say that the same is true for the children of female slaves. But if the spit and place of treading of slaves bought from non-Jews is pure, then all the more so the spit and place of treading of children of maidservants born in a Jewish home is pure. And thus, according to the one who says that they are pure, the comparison must be that in neither case do they make yayin nesekh.

 

הא קמ"ל עבדים דומיא דבני שפחות מה בני שפחות מלו ולא טבלו הוא דעושין יין נסך מלו וטבלו לא אף עבדים כן לאפוקי מדרב נחמן אמר שמואל דאמר רב נחמן אמר שמואל הלוקח עבדים מן העובדי כוכבים אע"פ שמלו וטבלו עושין יין נסך עד שתשקע עבודת כוכבים מפיהם קמ"ל דלא

 

It teaches us that slaves are similar to the children of female slaves: just as the children of female slaves, when circumcised but not immersed, render wine yayin nesek, and if both circumcised and immersed do not, so is it also with slaves. This excludes what R. Nahman said in the name of Shmuel: If [an Israelite] bought slaves from a non-Jew, although they had been both circumcised and immersed, they render wine yayin nesekh until idolatry is entirely banished from their lips. Thus he teaches us that it is not so.

 

The baraita equates slaves bought from non-Jews and slaves born from female slaves not to teach that in both cases minors do not make yayin nesekh. Rather the equation is made to teach that when slaves are bought from non-Jews, once they circumcise and immerse, they are considered Jews and do not render wine yayin nesekh, even if they still are essentially idolaters. This is the opposite of what R. Nahman said. For he said they render wine yayin nesekh until they forget the nature of idolater.

There are two competing notions in this section as to what it is about the non-Jew that causes his touch to prohibit wine. According to the baraita it is his ethnicity. Once his ethnicity is changed by conversion, he no longer renders wine yayin nesekh, no matter what is actual belief or practice is. According to R. Nahman it is his belief, his religion, that matters. If he still worships idols, the fact that he has circumcised and immersed is irrelevant.