|  |  | Previous Folio / ‘Abodah Zarah Directory / Tractate List / Home / Navigate Site # Babylonian Talmud: Tractate ‘Abodah Zarah ### Folio 72a And what means 'he is not allowed an opportunity of making restitution'?1 — [It signifies that] he does not come within the scope of the law of restitution.2 If that is so I quote the continuation of the teaching: If his neighbour came and stole it from him, [that man] is put to death on account of it. Now this is quite right with the first circumstance because [the original thief] caused trouble to an Israelite; but what had [the second thief] done in the latter circumstance [to be put to death]!3 Consequently we must deduce from this that acquisition by meshikah does apply to a Gentile! [Yes,] draw that conclusion. A man once said to his neighbour, 'If I sell this piece of land, I will sell it to you';4 but he went and sold it to another person. R. Joseph said: The first one acquired it.5 Abaye said to him: But he had not settled the price!6 [R. Joseph asked:] And whence do you declare that wherever he had not settled the price he has not acquired it? — [He replied:] As we learn in our Mishnah: IF [AN ISRAELITE] SELLS HIS WINE TO A HEATHEN, SHOULD HE HAVE SETTLED THE PRICE BEFORE HE MEASURED IT OUT, THE PURCHASE-MONEY IS PERMITTED; BUT SHOULD HE HAVE MEASURED IT OUT BEFORE HE SETTLED THE PRICE THE PURCHASE-MONEY IS PROHIBITED. [Now,] how is it then? — [How can you ask,] how is it then? It is as we have stated.7 — Perhaps the seriousness of yen nesek makes a difference! — Come and hear: R. Idi b. Abin said: A similar occurrence8 came before R. Hisda who referred it to R. Huna. The latter expounded it from the following: For it has been taught: If a man took possession of another's ass-drivers and workmen9 and brought them into his own house, whether he settled the price before measuring [the fruits] or measured them without having settled the price, he has not acquired them and both can retract. If, however, he unloaded them and brought them into his house, then should he have settled the price before he measured them neither can retract, and should he have measured them before settling the price both can retract.10 A man once said to his neighbour, 'If I sell this piece of land I will sell it to you for a hundred zuz.' He later sold it to another for a hundred and twenty. R. Kahana said: The first man acquired it. Rab Jacob of Nehar-pekod objected: As to this man, [it was] those zuz that compelled him.11 The legal decision agrees with R. Jacob of Nehar-pekod. If [the seller] said to [the would-be purchaser], 'When the article has been valued by three persons [we will settle the price accordingly],' even if two of the three agree [on the price it must be accepted]; but if he said, 'As three will declare [the price to be],' then there must be three who agree on the price.12 If he said, 'When it has been valued by four persons,'13 then there must be four who agree on the price; so how much more so if he said to him, 'As four will declare [the price to be].' If he said to him, 'When the article has been valued by three persons' and three men came and valued it, and then the other said, 'Let three different men come who are better qualified,' R. Papa said: He has the right to object.14 R. Huna the son of R. Joshua demurred: How can we know that the latter three will be better qualified; perhaps the first three were better qualified!15 The legal decision agrees with R. Huna the son of R. Joshua. MISHNAH. IF [AN ISRAELITE] TOOK THE FUNNEL AND MEASURED [WINE] INTO A HEATHEN'S FLASK AND THEN MEASURED SOME INTO AN ISRAELITE'S FLASK, SHOULD A DROP OF THE [FIRST] WINE HAVE REMAINED [IN THE FUNNEL], THEN [THE WINE MEASURED INTO THE SECOND FLASK] IS PROHIBITED. IF HE POURED FROM [HIS OWN] VESSEL INTO [A HEATHEN'S] VESSEL, [THE WINE IN THE VESSEL] FROM WHICH HE POURED IS PERMITTED AND [THE WINE IN THE VESSEL] INTO WHICH HE POURED IS PROHIBITED. GEMARA. We have learnt elsewhere: An outflow, a downward stream of water and dripping liquid do not form a connecting link to communicate either defilement or purification,16 but a pool of water is a connecting link to communicate both defilement and purification.17 R. Huna said: An outflow, a downward stream of water and dripping liquid form a connecting link in connection with yen nesek.18 R. Nahman asked R. Huna: Whence have you this? If from [the Mishnah] which we learnt: An outflow, a downward stream of water and dripping liquid do not form a connecting link to communicate either defilement or purification, [and you argue that] it is only in connection with defilement and purification that it does not form a link but it does in connection with yen nesek; in that case I cite the continuation, viz., but a pool of water is a connecting link to communicate both defilement and purification, [and you must by analogy deduce that] it is only in connection with defilement and purification that it does form a link but it does not in connection with yen nesek! So there is no inference to be drawn from this extract. We learnt: IF [AN ISRAELITE] TOOK THE FUNNEL AND MEASURED [WINE] INTO A HEATHEN'S FLASK AND THEN MEASURED SOME INTO AN ISRAELITE'S FLASK, To Part b Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files The property being ex hypothesi the Jew's. For the very reason that he had not technically acquired the Jew's property. He would not be executed for stealing the property of a non-Jew; hence he is regarded as having stolen what belonged to a Jew. Consequently what was in the possession of 'the son of Noah' was Jewish property and he had acquired it by meshikah. [This was attended by a formal kinyan (Rashi).] If he pays the price given by the purchaser. [The kinyan is of no effect, since in the absence of the fixation of any price the mind of the seller is not made up (Rashi).] Viz., the criterion is the settling of the price. Viz., similar to the sale of the field. I.e., a man is conveying fruits to market laden upon asses or carriers, and a would-be purchaser leads the asses and men into his own house, which is evidence of his intention to buy the produce. It follows that the criterion is the settling of the price. Accordingly in the case mentioned above, the man cannot claim the field. The offer of the higher price may have tempted him to dispose of it; and if it had not been made he would not have sold the field. In the former instance the three constituted a Court, and with a Court of three judges the verdict of two is adopted. Since a Court never consists of four, the intention when arranging for that number must have been to secure a unanimous valuation. To the first valuation and ask for three other valuers. The bargaining could then be drawn out indefinitely. So that if what is below is ritually unclean what is on top is not similarly affected; and if a ritual bath does not contain the requisite minimum quantity of water, an outflow etc. cannot be reckoned in to make up the deficiency. Toh. VIII, 9. So that if wine is poured into a vessel which contains yen nesek the former is contaminated. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference ### ‘Abodah Zarah 72b SHOULD A DROP OF THE [FIRST] WINE HAVE REMAINED [IN THE FUNNEL], THEN [THE WINE MEASURED INTO THE SECOND FLASK] IS PROHIBITED. How is the wine left [in the funnel] rendered prohibited? Must it not be by the outflow?1 So deduce from this that the outflow is a connecting link. [But against such a conclusion] R. Hiyya taught: [Our Mishnah refers to the circumstance where] his flask forced the wine back;2 therefore if his flask did not force it back, how is it? It is not [prohibited]. May you then not solve from the foregoing that the outflow is not a connecting link? — No; it merely proves that when his flask forced the wine back it is prohibited,3 but the question whether the outflow [is or is not a connecting link] remains. Come and hear: IF HE POURED FROM [HIS OWN] VESSEL INTO [A HEATHEN'S] VESSEL, [THE WINE IN THE VESSEL] FROM WHICH HE POURED IS PERMITTED. Hence what is between [the two vessels] is prohibited; so deduce from this that the outflow is a connecting link! But if the outflow is a connecting link, then what is inside [the first] vessel should likewise be prohibited! — This is no difficulty, because [we have here a case where] he cuts off [the outflow].4 Nevertheless [we do deduce from this that]5 the outflow is a connecting link! But according to your reasoning I will quote the continuation: AND [THE WINE IN THE VESSEL] INTO WHICH HE POURED IS PROHIBITED. Hence what is between [the two vessels] is permitted! Consequently no inference is to be drawn from this Mishnah.6 Come and hear: If he pours from a cask into a vat [which contains yen nesek], the jet of liquid which descends from the rim of the cask is prohibited!7 — R. Shesheth explained this [extract] as referring to a heathen pouring out so that [the wine flows] because of his action.8 But if it is a heathen pouring out, what is in the cask is likewise prohibited!9 — [What is disqualified] because of a heathen's action is prohibited by the Rabbis,10 and they decreed only against what issued [from the cask] and not against what was inside it.11 R. Hisda told the [Israelite] wine-dealers: When you measure wine for heathens, either cut off [the outflow] or pour it in with a splash.12 Raba told the [Israelites] whose occupation was to pour wine: When you pour wine, let no heathen come near to help you, lest you forget yourselves and rest [the vessel] upon his [hands] and [the pouring] result from his action and [the wine] be prohibited. A man was drawing wine13 through [a siphon consisting of] a large and small tube. A heathen came and laid his hand upon the large tube,14 and Raba disqualified all the wine.15 R. Papa said to Raba — another version is, R. Adda b. Mattena said to Raba; and still another version is, Rabina said to Raba: Was it on account of the outflow? So is it to be deduced from this that the outflow is a connecting link? — [Raba answered: No;] it is different in this instance, because all the wine is drawn through the siphon.16 Mar Zutra son of R. Nahman said: It is permitted [to drink from] a vessel containing several tubes,17 provided the Israelite stops first but not when a heathen stopped first.18 Rabbah son of R. Huna visited the house of the exilarch and allowed [the company which included Gentiles] to drink from a vessel containing several tubes. - To Next Folio - Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files Which connected the wine poured into the Jew's vessel with what was left in the funnel, and this was previously made nesek by the flow into the heathen's vessel. The heathen's flask being full, some wine flowed back into the funnel. According to this explanation, the wine in the funnel was contaminated not because the outflow formed a link. [Even if no drop of wine remained in the funnel (Tosaf.).] Before the wine enters the heathen's flask he moves aside the vessel from which he is pouring out so that the outflow does not connect the two. [The bracketed words are from Ms.M.] Whether the outflow is a link or not. The inference must then be that the flow is a link. In that case the flow was disqualified by the heathen and not by the contents of the vat. And not merely the outflow; why, then, does the extract refer to the outflow only as being prohibited? And not by the Torah. This extract accordingly does not establish the view that the outflow forms a link. I.e., a connecting flow must be avoided; he held that it did form a link. [From a full cask to an empty one.] [The side from which the wine flowed into the empty cask (Rashi).] [Even the wine in the full cask.] For this reason it must be considered as though he had touched the whole quantity of wine and not merely what was in the tube. So that many can drink at the same time; this is permitted even when a heathen is one of the number. If the heathen stopped first, what he had drawn into the tube but not drunk would flow back and disqualify the remainder. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference |  |  |