Commentaire sur Avoda Zara 5:14

השוכר את הפועל לעשות עמו ביין נסך – to empty from one utensil to another or to bring barrels from place to place and even with wine of gentiles (where it is unknown that it has been dedicated to an idol – see Talmud Avodah Zarah 74a).

Introduction This mishnah discusses a non-Jew who hires a Jew to work with him in the transportation of yen neskekh.

שכרו אסור – it is a fine that the Sages placed upon him with libations wine and wine of gentiles (where it is unknown where it is unknown that it has been dedicated to an idol).

If [a non-Jew] hires [a Jewish] workman to assist him in [the transportation of] yen nesekh, his wage is prohibited. If he hired him to assist him in another kind of work, even if he says to him, ג€œremove for me a cask of yen nesekh from this place to that,ג€ his wage is permitted. If he hired [a Jewג€™s] donkey to carry yen nesekh, its wages are prohibited; But if he hired it to sit upon, even though the non-Jew rested his jar [of yen nesekh] upon it, its wages are permitted. A Jew is not allowed to assist a non-Jew in the preparation or even the transportation of yen nesekh, wine which may eventually be used in libations. If he does so, and collects a wage for this specific type of work, the wage is prohibited, meaning that he cannot use the money. Since this person performed a forbidden act for profit, the Rabbis penalize him and forbid him to use his wages. However, if he was hired to do another type of work, for instance bring jugs of olive oil, and while working the non-Jew said to him to also bring a cask of yen nesekh, his wages are permitted. Since the Jew was not hired to work with specifically with the forbidden wine and the wages he receives are for his other work, the wages are permitted. [If the Jew was told from the outset that part of his work involved yen nesekh, the wages would be forbidden.]

שכרו מותר – as in the example where he said to him: “pass to me each and every barrel for a Perutah,” but if he said to him: “pass to me one hundred barrels for one hundred Perutot, and amongst them was found a barrel of libation wine, his hire is forbidden.

This section teaches a similar ruling with regard to a donkey driver. If the non-Jew hires a Jewג€™s donkey to bring yen nesekh, the wages which the Jew receives are forbidden. However, if the non-Jew hires the donkey to ride on it the wages are permitted, even if the non-Jew brings his yen nesekh on the donkey. Although in both cases the Jewג€™s donkey is helping carry the forbidden wine, since in the second case he is not receiving wages specifically for carrying the wine, the wages are permitted.

השוכר את החמור שכרה אסור – This Mishnah took hold of this because of the concluding segment [of the Mishnah] and the concluding part comes to teach us that even if he hires the donkey to ride upon it, he also hired it undefined to place his flash of wine and his provisions upon it, I might think that it is as if he hired it ab initio to bring upon it libation wine, and his hire is prohibited.

ידיחם – with cold water.

Introduction Mishnah two discusses yen nesekh that falls on other food items. The question is whether or not this causes the food to become prohibited.

מעשה בבייתוס בן זונין – The Mishnah is deficient, and should be read as follows (regarding dried figs and a barrel of libation wine was broken and the wine fell upon them): that if it imparts a deteriorating taste, it is permissible and it happened that Baitus ben Zunin who brought dried figs on a ship and the jug of libation wine broke upon them, and this incident came before the Sages and they permitted them.

If yen nesekh fell upon grapes, one may rinse them and they are permitted, but if they were split they are prohibited. If it fell upon figs or upon dates, should there be in them [sufficient wine] to impart a flavor, they are prohibited. If yen nesekh falls upon grapes, the grapes may be washed and then they are permitted. Since the yen nesekh does not have any effect on the taste of the grapes, they are permitted. If, however, the grapes were split open, then the wine could seep into them and effect their taste. In this case it is not possible to wash away the potential taste of the wine and therefore the grapes are forbidden.

כל שהוא בהנאתו בנותן טעם – that a person benefits from the taste of something prohibited.

It happened with Boethus ben Zpnin that he carried dried figs in a ship and a cask of yen nesekh was broken and it fell upon them; and he consulted the Sages who declared them permitted. This is the general rule: whatever derives advantage [from yen nesekh by its] imparting a flavor is prohibited, but whatever does not derive advantage [from yen nesekh by its] imparting a flavor is permitted, as, for example vinegar which fell upon split beans. If yen nesekh falls on other types of foods, such as dates or figs, the food becomes prohibited only if the wine improves the flavor of the food. The mishnah mentions a story of a person who carried figs and yen nesekh on a ship. When one of the casks of wine broke on the figs he asked the Sages if the figs were still permissible, and they permitted them. Since the wine does not improve the flavor of the figs, the person has not derived benefit from the wine and therefore the figs are permitted. This general rule, that the wine causes the food to be forbidden only if it imparts a good flavor is stated specifically in the next lines of the mishnah. The mishnah concludes with an example of another situation in which the taste is not improved, when vinegar (which comes from wine) falls on split beans.

כל שאין בהנאתו בנותן טעם – he does not benefit from the taste of something prohibited.

כגון חומץ – of something prohibited that fell into a dish of pounded grains that is permitted which imparts a deteriorating taste, and this is when the dish of pounded grains is boiling at the time that the vinegar fell into them, for then it impairs them from the beginning to the end. And there are four kinds of imparting of taste: There is a taste that improves it from the beginning to the end such as the example of wine in a cooked dish of meat or of fish. And this is forbidden a definite prohibition. And there is a taste that is deteriorating from the beginning until the end such as the example of a fatty, oily substance of fish or of meat with honey, and this is permitted ab initio. And there is something that is deteriorating from the beginning, but improves it at the end, such as the example of honey in wine which does damage to it at its time but when it tarries in it until the strength of the wine will do damage to it. The honey provides it taste and smell. And there is something that improves [its taste] [at the beginning] and at the end, as in the case of the fat of meat with butter or the taste is absorbed in the utensil which is not of the same day which improves it as it enters into it, and afterwards it deteriorates, and these two are prohibited from doubt. Therefore, if the dish of these pounded grains that vinegar fell into them which were not scalding hot, they are forbidden from doubt, since the vinegar in a dish of pounded grains early improves the flavor, and even though they improve its flavor, afterwards, it impairs it. It improves and at the end impairs and is forbidden.

אם היה בחזקת המשתמר – all the while that he did not inform him that he going away, it is presumed to be watched, and even if he went away a mile. For the heathen gets heated and says: “now the Israelite comes and sees me.”

Introduction This mishnah discusses a Jew who was carrying wine from one place to another with a non-Jew. The question is, are we suspicious that the non-Jew touched the wine, and that it is therefore forbidden.

אם הודיעו שהוא מפליג – and he (i.e., the Jewish watchman) distances himself from him and the jugs are closed.

If a non-Jew was transporting jars of wine together with a Jew from place to place, and it was presumed that [the wine] was under guard, it is permitted. But if [the Jew] informed him that he was going away [and he was absent a length of time] sufficient for the other to bore a hole [in a jar], stop it up and [the sealing clay] to become dry, [the wine is prohibited]. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: [a length of time] sufficient for him to open a cask, put a new stopper on and [the new stopper] to become dry. If, while transporting the wine with the non-Jew the non-Jew assumes that the Jew was always watching the wine, the wine is permitted. As long as the non-Jew suspects that the Jew might catch him opening up the wine and drinking from it, the non-Jew will not do so. The Jew might even leave the wine with the non-Jew for a while, as long as the Jew does not tell him that he is doing so. If the Jew leaves the non-Jew and tells him that he is doing so, then the non-Jew knows that he has a certain period of time in which he might be able to drink the wine without being caught. There are two opinions in the mishnah about how long this period of time must be. According to the first opinion, the non-Jew must have enough time to make a hole in the stopper of the jug (the stopper was made and sealed with clay), and then fill the hole back in, and the new seal to dry, so that the Jew will not be able to tell that it was opened when he returns. If the Jew did not tell the non-Jew that he would be away for this period of time, the wine is permitted. The second opinion is that of Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel. He assumes that if the non-Jew merely makes a hole in the stopper and then reseals it, the Jew will see the damage. The only way the non-Jew will avoid getting caught is if he removes the whole stopper, and then closes the jug with a new stopper and then the sealing on this new stopper dries. If the Jew does not stay away for the period of time it takes to do all of this, the wine is permitted.

כדי ששתום – if he delayed in order that the heathen could bore a hole in the sealing clay of the jug and he returns and seals the hole and the seal dries, it is prohibited.

ישתום – open, like (Numbers 24:3): “whose eyes are open/true,” that his eye is open.

רבן שב"ג אומר – He does not forbid other hat if he delayed in order to open all of the sealing clay of the jug.

ויגוף – and make another sealing clay.

ותיגוב – to become dried and glossy but for the making a hole/cavity in the sealing clay of the jug and especially with a sealing clay of plaster this is what the Rabbis dispute against Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel for they are suspicious of the opening of a hole because they don’t recognize that the plaster is white and it is not recognized between something new to something od, but in stopper of clay the Rabbis admit to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel that the wine is not lessened until he would delay enough until he can open it up completely, and it would dry and become glossy. And the Halakha is according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel.

המניח יינו בקרון או בספינה – with the heathen.

Introduction This mishnah is a direct continuation of the previous mishnah. In it we learn of two more situations in which a Jew leaves casks of wine with a non-Jew and we must decide whether or not the non-Jew is suspected of having opened the cask and removed some of the wine, thereby making it forbidden. Again, there is a dispute over how long the Jew may be absent before we suspect that the non-Jew will attempt to open the cask. Since we explained this dispute yesterday we will not explain it again here.

בקפנדריא – a shortcut that he enters in this gate and leaves from another gate opposite him.

If [a Jew] left his wine in a wagon or on a ship while he went along a short cut, entered a town and bathed, it is permitted. But if [the Jew] informed him that he was going away [and he was absent a length of time] sufficient for the other to bore a hole [in a jar], stop it up and [the sealing clay] to become dry, [the wine is prohibited]. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: [a length of time] sufficient for him to open a cask, put a new stopper on and [the new stopper] to become dry. In this situation the Jew again leaves the non-Jew with his wine, this time to make a quick excursion into the city. Note that he uses a short cut into the city. The fact that he is going and returning quickly will make the non-Jew fear getting caught should he open the cask. Therefore the wine is permitted. The Talmud teaches that if the mishnah had not included this scenario, we might have thought that since the non-Jew could take the wagon or boat and go to another place and there open the wine, that the wine is forbidden. The mishnah teaches that even in this case we are not concerned. The wine is only forbidden should the Jew tell the non-Jew that he is going and when he will return.

ורחץ – in the bathhouse.

If [a Jew] left a non-Jew in his shop, although he kept going in and out, [the wine there] is permitted. But if [the Jew] informed him that he was going away [and he was absent a length of time] sufficient for the other to bore a hole [in a jar], stop it up and [the sealing clay] to become dry, [the wine is prohibited]. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: [a length of time] sufficient for him to open a cask, put a new stopper on and [the new stopper] to become dry. In this scenario the Jew leaves the non-Jew in the store. Although the Jew is constantly going in and out of the store, and frequently leaving the non-Jew alone with the wine, the wine is permitted. Again, as long as he doesn’t tell him that he is leaving and when he is returning, the wine is permitted. The Talmud teaches that if the mishnah had not included this scenario, we might have thought that since the non-Jew could close the door to the store and then do what he wishes, that in this case the wine is forbidden. The mishnah therefore teaches that the wine is nevertheless permitted.

מותר – for since the heathen did not know that he delayed, he trembles and does not touch it. And our Mishnah teaches us the dispute of Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel and the Rabbis in these three segments [of the Mishnah]. For if it (i.e., the Mishnah) [only] taught that a heathen that was moving pitchers of wine, I might think that there, the heathen trembles for he holds that now he will see me. But on a ship or a wagon, he would be absent himself from his ship and does what he wants and does not tremble. But if [the Mishnah] only taught about the ship and the wagon and did not teach about a heathen placing it in his store, , I would think that in the ship and on a wagon, he trembles, for he holds that perhaps in another place, I will go and stand from the other side and he will see me. But when the heathen places it in his store, for one could say that he has designate it for a gate and does whatever he wants. I would say, no. It is necessary. And in all of this, the Halakha is according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel.

Questions for Further Thought:
• Section one: What do you think the ruling would be if the Jew did not take the short cut into the city? Would the wine nevertheless be permitted?

דלפקי – a utensil upon which one places cups and jugs with food and drink, and from it, they take and place [food and drink] on the table, but not one of those seated takes anything from the side-table but rather from the table.

Introduction This mishnah discusses a Jew who leaves a non-Jew sitting as a guest at his table. The question is what wine can we assume the non-Jew touched, and is therefore prohibited.

ואם אמר לו הוי מוזג ושותה – for since he extended to him permission, even for what was on the side-table, it is prohibited, for he relied upon it and came in contact with all of it.

If [a Jew] was eating with [a non-Jew] at a table and set some flasks upon the table and others upon a side-table and leaving them there went out, what is upon the table is prohibited and what is upon the side-table is permitted. And should he have said to him, “mix [some of the wine with water] and drink,” even what is upon the side-table is prohibited. When the Jew leaves the non-Jew alone at the table with an open flask of wine, it is of course assumed that the non-Jew will drink from the wine, thereby making it forbidden. However, since it is not customary for guests to drink from the “side-table”, the wine there is not forbidden. This side-table is evidently somewhat like the shelf behind the bar in our time. If you leave your guest with a bottle on a table it is acceptable for him to drink from the bottle. It is much less acceptable for him to go behind the bar and take out his own drink. If, however, the Jew told the non-Jew that he could mix some wine with water (this is how wine was always drunk during the time of the mishnah), then of course we must assume that the non-Jew will take also what is on the side-table. Although he did not specifically tell him to take from the wine on the side-table, it is as if he had done so. It is like someone today saying, “help yourself” to his friend sitting at his bar. Therefore all of the wine is forbidden.

חביות פתוחות – that are found in the house that he placed there.

Opened casks are prohibited, and the closed ones are permitted [except when he was absent a length of time] sufficient for [the non-Jew] to open it, put a new stopper on and [the new stopper] to become dry. If the Jew leaves the non-Jew with open casks of wine in the house, they are forbidden. The closed casks are permitted, as long as the Jew was not absent long enough for the non-Jew to open the cask, make a new stopper and then let the stopper dry.

כדי שיפתח ושתום ויגוב – this anonymous section is according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel and he Halakha is according to him.

Questions for Further Thought
• Section two: According to whose opinion from the previous mishnah is this section taught? Why might that be so?

בולשת – soldiers who search breaches made in houses. It is the Aramaic for searching and patrolling.

Introduction This mishnah discusses the permissibility of wine that was in a city when a band of non-Jewish marauders enter.

If a band of non-Jewish marauders entered a city in a time of peace, the open casks are prohibited and the sealed are permitted; ( In a time of war both are permitted because they do not have the leisure to offer libations. If the marauders enter the city in a time of peace, the assumption is that they may make libations from wine in open casks. Nevertheless, wine that is found afterwards in closed casks is permitted. The mishnah is not assuming that the marauders will not open the closed casks. After all, we have seen over and over in the previous mishnayoth that we must suspect that the non-Jews will open the casks and take from the wine. Rather the reason that the wine is permitted is that if the marauders had opened the casks they would not bother to reseal them. Unlike the non-Jews in the previous mishnah who might have attempted to be sneaky and take a drink without getting caught, the marauders have no such concern. However, if the marauders entered the city in a time of war, all of the wine is permitted, since they are too busy making war to make a libation.

תן לנו את דמיה – for they had not purchased, and he is not liable to them other than money.

Introduction The first two sections of this mishnah discuss situations in which a Jew is considered as selling yen nesekh, which therefore means that the proceeds from the sale are prohibited. The second two sections deal with situations in which a Jew is selling his wine to a non-Jew.

המוכר יינו לנכרי פסק –[fixed a price] with him in money before he measured the money (see Tractate Bava Batra, Chapter 5, Mishnah 7), it is permitted. For “pulling” with a heathen acquires as it does with an Israelite. And when the Israelite measured it out (i.e., the money) in his utensils, and the utensil came into the domain of the heathen, the heathen acquired it through “pulling,” and the Israelite would have Zuzim with the heathen as a loan but libation wine it would not be until he came in contact with it.

If a non-Jew sent to Jewish craftsmen a cask of yen nesekh as their wages, they are allowed to say to him, “give us its value in money”; ( But after [the wine] has come into their possession [the exchange] is prohibited. If a non-Jew who has hired a Jew to do some work for him, pays him with yen nesekh and actually gives the Jew the wine, the Jew cannot exchange the wine back for money. Once the wine comes into his possession it is actually his, and exchanging it with the non-Jew would in essence be selling yen nesekh, which is forbidden. If the Jew were to send back the shipment of wine before it reaches him then he may accept in its place money. Since in this case the non-Jew has never paid back his debt, it is not considered as if the Jew is selling his own yen nesekh.

מדד עד שלא פסק – the sum of the money: such and such wine for such and such amount of money,

If [a Jew] sells his wine to a non-Jew, should he have set the price before he measured it out, the purchase-money is permitted; ( But should he have measured it out before he set the price, the purchase-money is prohibited. If a Jew sells his wine to a non-Jew, he must make sure that he is not receiving money for what is now yen nesekh. If he measures out the wine to the non-Jew and then sets a price, he is actually receiving payment for selling yen nesekh, since the wine becomes yen nesekh as soon as it is in the non-Jew’s possession. Therefore, he must set a price before he gives over the wine. Note that once the price is set he need not receive the money, for the debt of the non-Jew is already fixed.

דמיו אסורין – his monies are forbidden, for the heathen does not acquire now through “pulling” because he did not fix the price, he did not rely that he would acquire through “pulling” lest his monies would increase. Therefore, when he came in contact with it, it was libation wine in the domain of the Israelite for the heathen had not yet acquired it until the price was fixed.

If [a Jew] took a funnel and measured [wine] into a non-Jew’s flask and then measured some into a Jew’s flask, should a drop of the [first] wine have remained [in the funnel], then [the wine measured into the second flask] is prohibited. In this section a Jew pours his wine into the container of a non-Jew using a funnel. The liquid that remains in the funnel when the Jew pours the wine into the non-Jew’s flask has the same status as the wine in the non-Jew’s flask itself. The fact that the wine in the flask is yen nesekh, means that the wine in the funnel is as well. This is because the funnel goes into the non-Jew’s container and may “take back” some of the yen nesekh. If even a drop of wine should remain in the funnel and the Jew should then pour more wine into the funnel and give it to a Jew, all of the wine has become contaminated as yen nesekh and it is all forbidden.

אם יש בו עכבת יין – if the funnel in which the wine was measured first the wine of the heathen, the retention of wine/drops of wine remaining on the rim that delays the wine on its lip that a drop won’t go out or two drops.

If he poured from [his own] vessel into [a non-Jew’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. This section teaches a distinguishing principle from the previous section. When one pours from one vessel into another, and the poured liquid never touches both vessels at the same time, there is no contamination from the lower vessel into the higher vessel. While the bottom liquid might become itself contaminated (if it is poured into a non-Jew’s flask), the top liquid remains permitted. We should note, that although these issues sound somewhat trivial, this issue, that of contamination flowing upwards through a poured liquid, was an issue of major content between different groups of Jews during the time of the Second Temple. In a famous document called “The Halakhic Letter” found in Qumran (The Dead Sea Scrolls” the author of the document complains that his opponents (probably the Pharisees) claim that the poured liquid is pure. This complaint is also mentioned as a complaint of the Sadducees against the Pharisees in Mishnah Yadayim 4:7. We see that our mishnah takes the Pharisaic point of view.

אסור – for wine of the Israelite is missing because of that drop of wine libation in the funnel.

המערה מכלי לכלי – an Israelite who emptied from his utensil to the utensil in the hand of the heathen or into the utensil where there is libation wine in it.

את שמערה ממנו מותר – the wine that remains in the upper utensil that is in the hand of the Israelite is permitted.

ואת שעירה בתוכו – the continuous flow/jet that went out from the utensil of the Israelite, even though it did not arrive into the utensil that is in the hand of the idolater and all the more so, that which arrived into the utensil of the idolater is prohibited for the jet produced by pouring out is a connection (i.e., the liquid at one end, if touched by a gentile, affects that in the vessel- see Talmud Avodah Zarah 56b). But our Mishnah which permits what remains in the utensil that is in the hand of the Israelite is speaking about the case for example, where he breaks off the connection of the flow, withdraws the pouring vessel before the jet reaches the vessel into which it is poured – see Talmud Avodah Zarah 72b), that prior to his coming in contact with the continuous flow in in the lower utensil that is in the hand of the heathen, the upper vessel that was attached to the utensil in the hand of the Israelite was interrupted , and if there wasn’t here an uninterrupted flow of liquid poured from vessel to vessel that would connect what was in the upper utensil to what is in the lower utensil. Alternatively, he hatchelled it by beating it as he cast out the wine from the upper utensil in the manner that they cast from the bowl in which the sprinkling is done and there was no duct nor an uninterrupted flow that would connect between the wine that is in the utensil in the hand of the Israelite to the utensil that is in the hand of the heathen. But, if there was there a connection, all that remained in the upper utensil that is in the hand of the Israelite is prohibited, for he hold that the jet produced by pouring out is a connection (the liquid at one end, if touched by a gentile, affects that in the vessel) which is prohibited in libation wine and such is the Halakha.

ומים במים – water that was offered as a libation to idolatry or was worshipped, with permitted water

Introduction This mishnah deals with the halachic topic of a forbidden substance becoming mixed with a permitted substance. The question is how much of the forbidden substance must be in the mixture for the entire mixture to become forbidden.

בכל שהוא – in any [miniscule] amount it makes no difference whether something declared valid because one part of it was indisputably valid to something prohibited or something that was absolutely prohibited that fell to something permitted, It prohibits its own kind in any [miniscule amount], as long as the prohibited thing that falls into something permitted falls from a utensil whose rim is wide and that the wine that leaves the utensil is a large measure at one time. But when one empties libation wine from a small utensil that does not produce other than a drop at a time, and it fell into permitted wine, even all day long, we say that which comes out first is annulled. But if he emptied something permitted into something prohibited, all that which he emptied from it into the prohibited substance is prohibited, and even from a full cask into one drop. But the conclusion of the matter according to the Halakha regarding all the prohibitions in the Torah whether of their own kind or not of their own kind is concerned with the imparting of a taste except for the cases of eatables forbidden pending the separation of sacred gifts and libation wine with their own kind with any [miniscule amount] and not of their own kind with the imparting of a taste. Libation wine is because of the stringency regarding idolatry. Cases of eatables forbidden pending the separation of sacred gifts because as it is made permitted, so is its prohibition, like the case of one [sheaf of] wheat exempts the pile, so too, one [sheaf of] wheat makes the entire pile forbidden pending the separation of sacred gifts. But if a prohibition from the rest of the prohibitions was mixed with something permitted- if something of one species was mixed with something that was not of its species for one could establish by taste if it is priest’s due/Terumah that was combined with non-holy produce/Hullin, a Kohen could taste it, and if it is a prohibited substance, a non-Jewish baker can taste it and if he says that in this mixture there isn’t the taste of Terumah or the taste of something prohibited, it is all permitted. But if something of one species was mixed with something of the same species where one cannot establish the taste, or something of one species [being mixed] with something of a different species and there is no Kohen or non-Jew present that we can rely upon him, if it is something prohibited from forbidden fats, from the blood of something that died of itself or torn, forbidden animals or reptiles (i.e., all kinds of forbidden foods) and similar things, we estimate it with sixty [parts], for if there are sixty parts of permitted substance in opposition to the prohibited substance, it is all permissible, but if not, it is all prohibited. But, if the prohibition is Terumah/priest’s due, Hallah and First Fruits/Bikkurim, we estimate/calculate it with one hundred [parts] of something permitted. But if we are dealing with Orlah/fourth year fruit, and mixed seeds in the vineyard, we calculate it with two-hundred parts.

Yen nesekh is prohibited and renders [other wine] prohibited by the smallest quantity. As we saw demonstrated in the previous mishnah, if even a drop of yen nesekh falls into a large container of permitted wine, the entire container of permitted wine is forbidden.

Wine [mixed] with wine and water with water [prohibits] by the smallest quantity. ( Wine [mixed] with water and water with wine [disqualifies when the prohibited element] imparts a flavor. If forbidden wine (yen nesekh) should become mixed with permitted (as we learned in section one) or forbidden water (that was used for idolatrous purposes) should be mixed with permitted water, the entire mixture is forbidden, even if the forbidden substance was only a drop. However, if forbidden wine should become mixed with permitted water, or forbidden water with permitted wine, as long as the forbidden substance does not impart a flavor to the mixture, the entire mixture is permitted. If the forbidden substance imparts flavor, the entire mixture is forbidden

This is the general rule: with the same type [the mixture is disqualified] by the smallest quantity, but with a different type [it is disqualified when the prohibited element] imparts a flavor. This section teaches a general rule from which the specific rule taught in the previous section may be extrapolated.

Questions for Further Thought:
• Why does the beginning of section two repeat that which was stated in section one?
• Why do you think there is a halachic difference between a type of substance mixed with the same type, versus two different types being mixed together?

ואלו אסורים ואוסרין בכל שהוא – every place where they were mixed there, even one in one-thousand, forbids everything.

The following are prohibited and render prohibited by the smallest quantity:
[a cask of] yen nesekh;
an idolatrous object;
skins of animals which have holes over the heart;
an ox which has been sentenced to be stoned;
a heifer whose neck was broken;
birds brought as an offering by a leper;
the hair-offering of a nazirite;
the first born of a donkey;
meat cooked in milk;
the scapegoat;
and non-consecrated animals slaughtered in the Temple court. Behold these are prohibited and render prohibited by the smallest quantity.
This mishnah contains a list of things that are prohibited and if even the smallest quantity of them is mixed up with a similar looking permitted item, the entire mixture is forbidden. The difference between this mishnah and the previous one is that here we are dealing with entire units, such as a cask of wine or an ox. If one of these which is forbidden such as a cask of wine that contains yen nesekh, becomes mixed in with a thousands casks containing kosher wine, they are all forbidden.
1) If one cask of yen nesekh is mixed up with even one thousand kosher casks, they are all forbidden.
2) If one statue used for idolatrous purposes is mixed up with even one thousand statues that were not used in idolatry, they are all forbidden.
3) In chapter two, mishnah two, we learned that idolaters would make circular holes and take out the animals heart and use it in worship. If a piece of one of these skins is mixed up with a large quantity of regular animal skins, they are all forbidden.
4) An ox that killed a man is to be sentenced to death (Ex. 21:28). If this ox becomes mixed up with other oxen, they are all forbidden. Note that in all of the cases of live animals in this mishnah, the same rule is true if the meat of the animal is mixed up with the meat of other animals.
5) This heifer is the one referred to in Deut. 21:4. It is used to expiate the blood guilty for a murder where the murderer has not been caught. If this heifer, after it has been designated to be part of the ritual and is on its way down to the wadi where its neck will be broken, should become mixed up with other heifers, they are all prohibited.
6) When a leper becomes cleansed of his disease, he must bring two birds as a sacrifice (Lev. 14:4). If they are mixed up with other birds, they are all forbidden.
7) When a nazirite ends his term of naziriteship, he must shave (Num. 6:18). Should his hair, once it is shaved off, become mixed up with other hair, it is all forbidden. In other words, no nazirite hair wigs!
8) The first born of a donkey is usually redeemed by giving a sheep to the priest in place of the donkey (Ex. 13:13). If this newborn donkey should become mixed up with other donkeys before it is redeemed, they are all forbidden.
9) If a piece of meat, cooked in milk should become mixed up with other kosher pieces of meat, they are all forbidden.
10) The scapegoat is the goat sent to Azazel on Yom Kippur (Lev. 16:22). If it should become mixed up with other goats, they are all forbidden.
11) It is forbidden to slaughter non-sanctified animals in the Temple court. If the carcass of an animal slaughtered in this fashion should become mixed up with other carcasses, they are all forbidden.

יין נסך – one jug in one-thousand jugs forbids benefit of all of them , but this is not the Halakha but rather, as we have written at the end [the chapter] "כל הצלמים" /all of the [idolatrous] images (Tractate Avodah Zarah, Chapter 3, Mishnah 9): They take the monies of that jug to the Dead Sea, and the rest – everything is permitted to derive benefit but prohibited to drink.

ועבודה זרה – a figure that was worshipped and mixed with one thousand figures which are not idolatrous.

ועורות לבובין – these are also forbidden to derive benefit from them as we mentioned in the chapter"אין מעמידין"/we don’t leave (Tractate Avodah Zarah, Chapter 2, Mishnah 3).

וצפורי מצורע וחולין שנשחטו בעזרה – things prohibited to derive benefit from and in Chapter two of [Tractate] Kiddushin (Mishnah 9) we explain them.

ושעיר נזיר – they are prohibited to derive benefit from as it is written (Numbers 6:18): “and take the locks of his consecrated hair and put them on the fire that is under the sacrifice of well-being.” And if a bundle of the hair of the Nazirite, een one thousand bundles of the rest of the hair, all are prohibited to derive benefit from them.

ופטר חמור – are prohibited to derive benefit all the while that it is not redeemed.

ובשר בחלב – a piece of meat that was cooked in milk and became combined with one-thousand pieces [of meat], it prohibits all of them regarding deriving benefit. And this Tanna/teacher holds that a thing where it is customary to be counted and its prohibition is one of deriving benefit, prohibits the mixture in any amount, and aall of these are considered in our Mishnah a thing where it is customary to be counted, and their prohibition is a prohibition of deriving benefit.

הרי אלו – o exclude that which is forbidden to derive benefit and it is not customary to count, or where it is their practice to be counted, and are not forbidden from deriving benefit, which do not forbid the mixture in any [even miniscule] amount.

שנפל לבור – [a cistern] of wine.

If yen nesekh fell into a vat, the whole of it is prohibited for use.
Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: the whole of it may be sold to non-Jews with the exception of [a quantity corresponding to] the value of the yen nesekh in it.
This mishnah returns to the discussion of yen nesekh that falls into a larger quantity of permitted wine.
This mishnah contains a dispute between Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel and the anonymous mishnah with regards to the prohibition of a mixture of yen nesekh and permitted wine. According to the first section in the mishnah it is forbidden to derive any benefit from even a mixture of yen nesekh and other wine. In essence, the wine must be thrown away. According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel, the Jew may remove a quantity of wine from the mixture that corresponds to the quantity of yen nesekh which fell in, and the rest he may sell to a non-Jew. In this way he is not deriving any financial benefit from yen nesekh.

כולו אסור בהנאה – that the wine which was poured as a libation for idolatry prohibits in the same species in any [miniscule\ amount. But wine of gentiles in which it is not known if it was used for a libation to idolatry of non-Jews where they did not know about it that it had definitely been poured as definite libation, even though it is prohibited to derive benefit from it, its mixture does not prohibit deriving benefit from it, but rather, all of it should be sold to non-Jews, outside of the monies of that wine which is not known whether or not it had been poured as a libation to idolatry, and such is the Halakha.

שזפתה עובד כוכבים – it is the way to cast upon it a little bit of wine to remove [knots] of pitch.

If a none covered a stone wine press with pitch it may be scoured and is then clean;
But if it was of wood, Rabbi says that it may be scoured and the Sages say that he must peel off the pitch.
If it was of earthenware, even though he peeled off the pitch it is prohibited.
In the time of the mishnah wine presses were sealed with pitch. A little bit of wine was put into the pitch in order to prevent the smell of the pitch from ruining the taste of the wine made in the wine press. Our mishnah discusses a Jew who buys a wine press from a non-Jew. Since the non-Jew used wine, which is yen nesekh, in the pitch in the wine press, the mishnah must teach how to make the wine press “kosher”. In this mishnah and in the next we will learn several rules that are still observed today by those who keep the laws of kashruth.
There are three types of wine presses mentioned by the mishnah: stone, wood and earthenware. Stone is the least absorbent of these materials. Furthermore, stone wine presses do not require much pitch to seal them. Therefore, all the Jew must do is scour the wine press to rid it of any traces of the previous owner’s wine. If the wine press was made of wood, Rabbi [Judah Hanasi] holds that it also may be scoured. However, the Sages hold that he must also peel off all of the pitch. Since wood is more absorbent than stone, and since wood wine presses require more pitch, he must be even more diligent in cleaning before it becomes usable. If the wine press is of earthenware, the Jew may never use it. Since earthenware is very absorbent, there is no way to rid it of the yen nesekh.

מנגבה – with water and ashes [to remove wine from the coat of pitch].

ושל עץ – that requires a lot of pitch, and it absorbs a lot of wine.

רבי אומר ינגב – [it is scoured] with a stone. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi [Yehuda HaNasi].

ושל חרס – whether [the opinion of] Rabbi [Yehuda HaNasi], whether [the opinion of] the Rabbis, even though he has peeled/scraped off the pitch, it is prohibited, for earthenware without pitch absorbs wine.

כלי תשמיש – of a meal, and specifically metal utensils or earthenware utensils that are coated with lead, and glass utensils are like metal utensils [as well].

If [a Jew] purchases cooking-utensils from a non-Jew, those which are customarily used with cold liquids, he must immerse;
Those which are customarily used with hot liquids, he must be dip in boiling water;
Those which are customarily made white-hot in the fire, he must make white-hot in the fire.
A spit and grill must be made white-hot, But a knife may be polished and is then ritually clean.
This mishnah discusses how a Jew can make usable cooking utensils that were purchased from a non-Jew. Since the non-Jew surely used these utensils to cook unkosher products, the utensils must be “kashered”.
The general principle in this mishnah is quite simple: the way that a utensil was normally used is the way that it is made usable by the Jew. The Talmud explains that this is learned from a midrashic reading of Numbers 31: “any article that can withstand fire these you shall pass through fire and they shall be clean, except that they must be cleansed with water of lustration; and anything that cannot withstand fire you must pass through water.”
A utensil that was used generally with cold foods may be washed off and it is kosher. Since it was used with cold, it did not absorb the unkosher food and therefore it need only be cleaned with water. If a utensil had been used with hot boiling liquids, such as a soup pot, it absorbed more than the utensil used with cold. Therefore it must be dipped in boiling water to remove the unkosher elements that it has absorbed. Utensils that had been used directly on the fire, such as the spit and the grill, become even more absorbent. The only way to kasher them is to make them white hot.
A knife is a special case: it must be polished so that the outside layer of the knife is actually removed. This is because the knife, which is pressed with force into foods, tends to become more absorbent, even though it is not used directly on the fire. Remember that the knives in those days were not made of the hard stainless steel of which our knives are made.
Congratulations! We have finished Avodah Zarah.
Again this is the point where we thank God for helping us to finish learning the tractate and commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives.
I hope that you found this tractate as interesting as I did. We live in a world where the relationship of Jews to non-Jews is, thank God, much better, especially in North America, and therefore many of the rules in the tractate probably strike us as harsh and not applicable to our lives. However, Jews still face the problem of assimilation that Rabbis faced 2000 years ago and we still have much to learn from them on this topic. This tractate is that we saw the way that the Rabbis dealt with living in a society where they were a minority.
Tomorrow we begin to learn Tractate Avoth, also known as Pirkei Avoth or Ethics of the Fathers.

את שדרכו להטביל – meaning to say, a utensil that is appropriate to become pure through ritual immersion and it doesn’t require another improvement/repair for example that it is used through cold water.

מטביל – in a Kosher Mikveh for the ritual immersion of a woman and its immersion permits it.

להגעיל – as for example, kettles and pots of metal whose use is through boiling water.

יגעיל – in hot water that we bring them into a kettle filled with boiling water and we leave them in there a bit and this is after we scour them and remove their rust/mold and afterwards immerse them in a Mikveh that is kosher for the immersion of a woman, and they are permitted.

ללבן – utensils that we use them through the fire with something dry, without broth/juice of meat as we explain further on such as the examples of spits/skewers and grilles.

מלבנו באור – until there would be sparks flying off from them, and afterwards, we immerse them and they are then permitted.

שפה – insert it in the ground hard ten times, and if there are no indentations in it, one can eat cold on it, or we sharpen it with its whetting implement of stone and one can eat on it, even boiling [foods]. But if there were indentations in it, we make it white-hot, and all of them that were used before they were not boiled or before they were made white-hot or before it was immersed [in a Mikveh], it is permitted.