Talmud do Joma 1:16

HALAKHAH: “One does not put up animals in hostelries of Gentiles,” etc. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina; Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Jonah⁵Unfortunately G is very lacunary here; therefore its readings are not given after the Hebrew text. The Halakhah starts: “R. Ze‘urah, R. Abbahu in the name of R. Yose ben Ḥanina, R. ..… R. Abbahu in the name of R. Yose ben Ḥanina, explain it …” There is no reason to mention the sixth generation R. Abba III and the fifth generation R. Jonah who later disagrees with the statement if already it was attributed to the second generation R. Yose ben Ḥanina.: explain it⁶The Mishnah which forbids to put up unsupervised animals in the stable of a Gentile hostelry makes travel outside Jewish settlements practically impossible. An attribution to R. Eliezer removes the first part of the Mishnah from practice. following Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer said “it may not be bought from Gentiles.⁷Mishnah Parah2:1. This refers to the Red Cow (Num. 19) whose ashes are needed to cleanse people from the impurity of the dead. The Cow is not a Temple sacrifice; how far the restrictions imposed on sacrificial animals and the officiating priests apply to the Cow and its officiants are old matters of dispute between Sadducees and Pharisees (Mishnah Parah3:3,7) and among the rabbis themselves. One of the biblical requirements is that the Red Cow never carried a yoke (Num. 19:2). In Mishnah Parah2:1, a first statement of R. Eliezer validates a pregnant Red Cow for the ceremonies; the reason is explained in Mishnah 4 by his student’s R. Illai’s son R. Jehudah, that a bull mounting the Cow on his own cannot be considered making her carrying anything; only copulation by human intervention makes the ox the equivalent of a yoke. The majority rejects the ruling; it considers the Cow and its fetus as two separate beings but v. 19:3 requires the Cow alone to be taken. These restrictions do not apply to ordinary sacrifices. R. Eliezer then forbids buying a Red Cow from Gentiles since a sodomized animal is unfit for the altar; the Sages disagree since without reason one does not suspect that such a thing happened; this would make the Mishnah here unreasonable. (The last generation R. Yose bar Abun even introduces buying a Red Cow from a Gentile into a story about R. Eliezer; Peah1:1 Notes 99 ff., Qiddušin1:7 Notes 607 ff.) Babli 23a.” Rebbi Jonah asked, why do we not explain it according to everybody, following what Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rav: Even one who says it is permitted to sell [says] it is forbidden to leave alone⁸One may not leave the animal alone with a Gentile. Chapter 1:6, Note 165. There the first tradent is R. Jonah himself.. If he transgressed and left it alone by everybody’s opinion⁹It is not said what everybody’s opinion is; the corresponding passage in G is in the name of “the rabbis of Caesarea, Giddul bar Benjamin in the name of Rav” but then is missing the conclusion. One has to assume that it was “if he transgressed and left it alone by everybody’s opinion the animal remains permitted.”. Rebbi Jeremiah said, let us hear from the following¹⁰Mishnah Ketubot2:9. If she is jailed because of money matters one must assume that she was not raped; if she was condemned to death one must assume that she was raped or consented to sex with her jailers. If a woman can be alone in the custody of Gentiles without being raped, may the same not be assumed of female animals?: “A woman who was jailed by Gentiles.” Rebbi Yose said, it is different for a woman because she usually cries. Think of it if she was mute! She uses sign language. What about it¹¹The argument appears to be cogent.? Explain it following Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer said “it may not be bought from Gentiles.” They wanted to say, where do Rebbi Eliezer and the rabbis disagree? About the cow, because of “eminence was given to the cow, an adornment was made for the cow.¹²In the Mishnah, not only do the rabbis permit to buy a Red Cow from a Gentile owner, they also allow to buy sacrificial animals from him. The question arises whether R. Eliezer will agree with this or not. The assumption here is that R. Eliezer will agree that sacrifices can be bought from Gentiles but not the Red Cow, whose ceremonies in pharisaic theory were made with many non-scriptural restrictions because of an important difference with Sadducees in matters of ritual purity (Mishnah Parah3:7,8).” But since the rabbis answer to Rebbi Eliezer all sheep of Qedar will be assembled for you¹³Is.60:7. The verse ends: they will be brought on My altar for pleasure. This gives divine sanction for using animals raised by Gentiles for the altar. Since the verse speaks of sacrifices, not of the Red C ow, R. Eliezer must hold that sacrificial animals cannot be bought from Gentiles. The same argument is quoted in the Babli 24a., this says that Rebbi Eliezer disagrees about everything. Rebbi Hoshaia asked, does one reply with an argument about the future against one about the past¹⁴The preceding argument does not prove anything in practice since in the next paragraph it will be shown that in messianic times the Gentiles will accept the Torah. Their animals may well be acceptable then but not now.? Rebbi Abin asked, does one reply with an argument when evil inclinations will have disappeared against one when evil inclinations exist¹⁵This is the same argument as before.?

Because no blessing is written for creatures? Could she have been married on the Sabbath if a blessing were written for creatures? But was it not stated⁷This baraita is stated in full in Berakhot 2:6 (5b 1. 7), Note 261.: “A man should not first have sexual relations⁸With his virgin bride. on the Sabbath, for he makes a wound.” It must follow “others”, for “others permit it.⁹This is part of the baraita text in Berakhot. In the Babli, Ketubot 6b, the opinion of “others” is ascribed to “the Sages” and practice is decided following them.” But “others” permit only when he is already married¹⁰Meaning the final marriage ceremony in which the bride enters her husband’s house, which consists of the recitation of the “Seven Benedictions” in the presence of at least ten witnesses (cf. Note 76) after which the couple is considered married in all respects by being alone together. This ceremony activates all monetary aspects of the marriage contract., for before he was married he had no right to what she finds, what she earns¹¹In addition, the woman acquires the right to all services the husband is obligated to deliver in return for his acquisition of her property rights., and to dissolve her vows¹²Without needing her father’s consent; cf. Nedarim Chapter 11.. After he married her, he has the right to receive what she finds or earns, and to dissolve her vows. If you say so, he is like someone who acquires on the Sabbath¹³Which is certainly forbidden by rabbinic standards, and, in the opinion of Isaiah, by biblical standards (Is. 58:13).. Rebbi Mana said, this means that those who marry a widow¹⁴Who make the big wedding meal Friday night, to save the expenses of a separate Sabbath meal. must take her in¹⁵He must take her into his house before sunset to acquire his marital rights.
This sentence, which has no parallel in the Babli, is the source of an extensive rabbinic literature; cf. Šulḥan ‘Arukh Even Ha‘ezer 64:5. (In Tosafot, Yoma 13b, s. v. לחדא, the statement is quoted in the name of R. Ḥanina.) The question is whether the clause “to take her in”, is different from “entering the ḥuppah” used to describe the final marriage ceremony of a virgin. From Medieval times, ḥuppah denotes the canopy, open on all sides, under which the pair stands for the recitation of the “Seven Benedictions”. But there is no reason to assume that חוּפָּה originally meant anything but the totally covered bridal bedroom (Ps. 19:6), from חפה “to cover”. There is no indication here that the rules of transfer of property rights are different for marriages of virgins and widows. when it is still daytime on Friday, that he should not be like someone who acquires on the Sabbath.

There, we have stated⁵⁸Mishnah ‘Arakhin 6:1. The argument refers to the part of the Mishnah which is not quoted: “The public sale of orphans’ property goes on for 30 days, the public sale of Temple property goes on for 30 days, and one publicly announces mornings and evenings. If somebody dedicates his property while the lien if favor of a wife’s ketubah was in effect, Rebbi Eliezer says, if he would divorce her, he has to make her vow not to have any usufruct from him; Rebbi Joshua says, it is not necessary. Similarly, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says regarding a guarantor of a woman’s ketubah whose husband divorces her, that he shall make him execute a vow of usufruct lest he could plot against his property and take his wife back.”: “The public sale of orphans’ property⁵⁹The administrator of an estate whose beneficiaries are underage can sell real estate to satisfy claims against the estate only under supervision by the court. There has to be a 30 day public notice of the land being up for sale; at the end of the period the parcel is sold to the highest bidder. goes on for 30 days, the public sale of Temple property⁶⁰Sale of real estate donated to the Temple. goes on for 30 days, and they are publicly announed mornings and evenings.” Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Eliezer is afraid of trickery⁶¹If the wife has to vow not to have any future usufruct from her past husband in order to collect her ketubah from the Temple, she cannot remarry him. R. Eliezer suspects that a husband who donates his property to the Temple might want to get it back by divorcing his wife, waiting until she has collected her ketubah, then remarrying her and receiving the ketubah money as dowry., Rebbi Joshua is not afraid of trickery. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Eliezer follows the House of Shammai and Rebbi Joshua the House of Hillel⁶²He disagrees with R. Mana and holds that their differences are systemic. This is the only opinion quoted in the Babli, ‘Arakhin 23a.. Rebbi Eliezer follows the House of Shammai, since the House of Shammai say, a person may ask about his dedication; could he say that he does not have to vow usufruct?⁶³This text seems to be corrupt. Since in our Mishnah, the House of Shammai hold that dedication in error is valid, it is clear that they must hold that a vow of dedication cannot be abrogated by an Elder (cf. Nedarim, Introduction p. 422, Chapter 9). Therefore, the text must read: דְּבֵית שַׁמַּי אוֹמְרִים. אֵיו אָדָם נִשְׁאַל עַל הֶקְדֵּשׁוֹ. וְהוּא דַהֲוָה אָמַר. אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהַדִיר הֲנָייָה. וּדְרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ כְּבֵית הִלֵּל. דְּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים. אָדָם נִשְׁאַל עַל הֶקְדֵּשׁוֹ. וְהוּא דַהֲוָה אָמַר. צָרִיךְ לְהַדִיר הֲנָייָה. “Rebbi Eliezer follows the House of Shammai, since the House of Shammai say, a person may not ask about his dedication; could he say that he does not have to vow ususfruct? Rebbi Joshua follows the House of Hillel, since the House of Hillel say, a person may ask about his dedication; could he say that he has to vow usufruct?” The “vow of usufruct” is a vow never to have any usufruct from the person designated in the vow. Rebbi Joshua follows the House of Hillel, since the House of Hillel say, a person may not ask about his dedication; could he say that he has to vow usufruct⁶⁴Since he could ask an Elder about his vow, he does not need any tricks.? In any case, could not a man ask about his vow of usufruct?⁶⁵R. Eliezer should agree that a man who cannot have his dedication annulled may try to have his vow of usufruct annulled. Rebbi Joshua agrees that a guarantor must execute a vow of usufruct⁶⁶R. Joshua will agree that the husband of a woman whose ketubah is collected from a third party has to promise never to take her back. It is not that the guarantor has to vow; he has to ask the divorcing couple for their vows.. What does Rebbi Joshua say about a gift? Since he gives voluntarily, he does not have to vow usufruct, or since [the recipient’s] power is small and [the donor] may change his mind, does he have to vow usufruct? Let us hear from the following: The husband of a relative of Rebbi Ḥaggai owed on a document⁶⁷Greek χάρτης, Latin charta, “papyrus, roll of papyrus”.. The creditor came and foreclosed. The case⁶⁸After the foreclosure, the husband divorced his wife and she went to court to foreclose on the foreclosed parcel since the lien of her ketubah preceded the creditor’s loan document. came before Rebbi Aḥa, who said, he⁶⁹The husband owes a vow of usufruct which will forbid him to remarry his wife in order to permit the wife to collect her ketubah. owes a vow of usufruct. Rebbi Yose said, he does not have to vow usufruct. The colleagues said before Rebbi Aḥa [and] Rebbi Yose: Does Rebbi Aḥa say it correctly? Since if he takes her back, does not the creditor come and foreclose⁷⁰If the husband should remarry his divorcee, would not her property become the husband’s property as dowry, and could not the creditor then foreclose it for his claim? It seems that the creditor loses nothing if there is no vow.? Rebbi Yose said to them, she turns it into jewelry or keeps it as additions to her dowry⁷¹Cf. Ketubot 5:10, Note 218. Before the marriage, they sign a stipulation that the husband shall have no rights to the property. Then the creditor would be left without recourse.. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, by Moses! Rebbi Yose says it correctly. It was executed following Rebbi Aḥa⁷²In this and similar cases, the husband has to deliver a vow which forbids him any future usufruct from his divorcee..

“Ben Gever for locking the doors.” Rav explained for the House of Rebbi Shila, “when gever called⁴⁷Mishnah Yoma1:8.” as “when the herald proclaimed.” They said to him, “when the rooster called.” He said to them, did we not state “Ben Gever”? Could you say, “the son of the rooster”?

What about it⁹⁴What is the practice about prohibited Gentile marriages.? Rebbi Yose said, about any incest prohibition which for a Jewish court is a capital crime, a descendant of Noah⁹⁵Any Gentile. is forewarned; and about any incest prohibition which for a court is not a capital crime, a descendant of Noah is not forewarned⁹⁶This is characterized as R. Meïr’s minority opinion in the Babli, Sanhedrin 57b.. They objected: Is not a case involving the sister a capital crime for a Jewish court and the descendants of Noah are not forewarned⁹⁷The example is exceedingly bad since incest with one’s sister is punished by Heaven with extirpation (Lev. 20:17) but is not a capital crime on Earth. Maybe the reference should be to a man married to a woman and her daughter; cf. Note 82.? Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “Because of these abominations, the Eternal, your God, uproots them before you.⁹⁸Deut. 18:12, speaking of idolatry.” This teaches that the Holy One, praise to Him, does not punish if He did not warn⁹⁹The prohibition of idolatry is universal, valid for all descendants of Noah (Babli Sanhedrin 57b). Therefore, Gentiles can be punished for idolatrous practices since they have been warned about them. R. Hila seems to agree that the incest prohibitions which exceed the bare minimum are directed against idolatrous practices..

“They agree that if it falls on the Sabbath that its slaughter-day is after the Sabbath.” So the House of Hillel are saying, its slaughter-day is after the Sabbath. Whose are the hides¹⁴⁷By biblical decree, the hides belong to the Cohanim serving at the moment of sacrifice, Lev. 7:8. Now on a holiday where all of Israel is commanded to appear in the Temple, all Cohanim also are asked to appear and therefore have equal claim to all hides of holiday sacrifices. But on all other days, only the watch of service of this week has a claim; in fact, only the clan serving on that very day. Therefore if the slaughter-day is treated as an extension of the holiday, all Cohanim must be admitted to service and the hides belong to all watches. But if it is a regular weekday, only the serving clan or, if its personnel is not sufficient, the serving watch are admitted to service and to receive the prebends.? Rebbi Tabi in the name of Rebbi Joshia: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. Rebbi Joḥanan said, of all watches. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, of this watch. And you are saying, its slaughter-day is after the Sabbath; whose are the hides? The disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish¹⁴⁸Is it really a problem on Pentecost which falls on a Sabbath and the Cohanim on pilgrimage cannot leave the place of the Temple on the Sabbath and therefore are all available for service on the next day?? Rebbi Joḥanan said, Pentecost has all of seven days as make-up¹⁴⁹Cf. Halakhah 1:1, Note 33. Babli 17a,b.. Rav Hoshaia objected: was it not stated, just as the New Moon is one day after its count, to Pentecost is one day after its count? Rebbi La said, if he did not bring his holiday sacrifice on the first day, he may bring it all seven days¹⁵⁰It is obvious that the pilgrimage offerings are holiday offerings, to be serviced by all Cohanim who therefore are entitled to their share of the hides..

HALAKHAH: ⁹⁴Sheqalim5:2, Note 47. Since all sources of the Mishnah here have “the rooster” with definite article, not fitting for a person, the quote is not quite appropriate and the source certainly is in Sheqalim. Rav explained for the House of Rebbi Shila, “when gever called⁹⁵Mishnah Yoma1:8.” as “when the herald proclaimed.” They said to him, “when the rooster called.” He said to them, did we not state “Ben Gever”? Could you say, “the son of the rooster”?

If he left and re-entered⁷⁹He left the cemetery and then re-entered as nazir., Rebbi Ṭarphon frees him from prosecution, Rebbi Aqiba declares him guilty. Rebbi Ṭarphon said to him, what did this one add to his desecration⁸⁰Since he already was defiled when he made his vow, how can he be prosecuted for defiling himself?? Rebbi Aqiba said, as long as he was there, he was defiling himself by the impurity of seven days⁸¹As long as he was in contact with a corpse or forming a “tent” over it and he touched another person, that person becomes impure and has to undergo the 7 day ritual.. When he left, he was defiling himself by the impurity of evening⁸²If one who is impure by the impurity of the dead touches another person, that person becomes impure in a derivative way. He has to immerse himself in water and becomes pure at sundown.. When he re-entered, defiling himself by the impurity of (evening)⁸³This is clearly a scribal (corrector’s) error and must read: “the impurity of 7 days.” In the cemetery, he at least acquires the capability of transmitting the impurity of 7 days. Therefore, his status of impurity has changed; he can be prosecuted.. Rebbi Ṭarphon told him, Aqiba! Any who leaves you is as if he left his life.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If one has intercourse with a co-wife¹⁸²Widow of his brother whom he cannot marry because of the incest prohibition regarding the other wife., is he guilty because of his brother’s wife¹⁸³In general, the brother’s wife is forbidden under penalty of divine extirpation. But if levirate is possible, the widows of the dead brother become potentially permitted. If one of them is married by a brother, the others are forbidden since Deut. 25:5–9 speaks only of one sister-in-law and one house to build. The question is, does the brother who sleeps with the excluded co-wife infringe on the prescription (regarding a single levirate) of Deut. 25 or the incest prohibition of Lev. 18? The problem does not appear in the Babli since it derives all prohibitions directly from Lev. 18.? Rebbi Yose said, if a co-wife were possible without a brother’s wife, that would be a valid question¹⁸⁴In the sense of R. Jeremiah’s first question.. It is possible to be a brother’s wife without a co-wife. It is impossible to be a co-wife without a brother’s wife¹⁸⁵As R. Ḥiyya stated. Therefore, the prohibition of the co-wife is no separate prohibition, but only that one of the dead brother’s wives gets a special dispensation from the incest prohibition of Lev. 18:16..

The rabbis increase the water and decrease the days; Rebbi Jehudah decreases the water and increases the days¹¹⁴One log, not three; for eight days, not seven..

It is written³⁸⁰2S. 1:17–18.: “And David sang this elegy”, etc., “and said: To teach the people of Judah archery.” Is it reasonable that he had to teach the people of Judah, who was he³⁸¹Instead of מי היה, the Rome ms. reads נהיה; probably a corruption. The problem is that (1) the mention of Jehudah in a dirge about the slain of Benjamin is somewhat out of place, and (2) that David, who had a magic bow (Ps. 18:35), long ago was a teacher of archery. “He” refers to David.? But David said, when the just have disappeared, the haters come and attack Israel. “Is that not written in the book Yashar?” Two Amoraïm. One says, that is the book of Genesis. But the other said, that is the fifth of Numbers³⁸²In the Babli, Avodah Zarah 25a, R. Joḥanan identifies the book Yashar with Genesis, R. Eleazar with Deuteronomy. In the Babli, the book of Yashar is not a book of wars. “Fifth” is the standard rabbinic name for any one of the five books of the Pentateuch.. The one who said, this is the book of Genesis, is understandable³⁸³Since it records the victory of Abraham over the kings of the East.. But the one who said, that is the fifth of Numbers, what war is reported there? ³⁸⁴From here to the end of the paragraph, the text is also in Yoma 1:1, fol. 38b.“The Children of Israel travelled from the springs of Bene-Ya‘aqon to Mosera; there Aaron died³⁸⁵Deut. 10:6..” Did Aaron die at Mosera? Did he not die on Mount Hor? That is what is written: “Aaron the Cohen ascended Mount Hor and died there.³⁸⁶Num. 33:38.” But when Aaron died and the clouds of glory disappeared, the Canaanites desired to attack Israel. That is what is written: “The Canaanite, the king of Arad, dweller in the Southland, heard that Israel came by the way of the scouts.³⁸⁷Num. 33:40. The same interpretation is in the Babli, Roš Haššanah 3a. Cf. also Num. rabba 19(11), Tanḥuma Buber Ḥuqqat 42, Tanḥuma Ḥuqqat 18; Threni rabbati 1(64); Tosephta 11:1; Sifry Num. 82.” What is “the way of the scouts”? He heard that Aaron died, the great scout, who did scout the way for them³⁸⁸Since Aaron was responsible for the Ark which was the pathfinder (Num. 10:33).. They came and attacked them. Then Israel wanted to return to Egypt and travelled eight stations backward. The tribe of Levi ran after them and killed eight families from them³⁸⁹In the catalog of families in Num. 26, 8 families are missing compared to the enumeration of grandsons of Jacob in Gen. 46: 5 from Benjamin and 1 each from Simeon, Gad, and Asher.. They also killed four of their families. That is what is written: “The Amramite, the Yiṣharite, the Ḥebronite, the Uzielite.³⁹⁰1Chr. 26:23, an isolated verse seemingly without connection to what comes before and after. This is interpreted to mean that David took care to re-establish these families after they had been decimated. The only levitic family missing in the list of Num. 26 is Šim‘î.” When were they re-established? In David’s time. That is what is written: “In his days, the just will blossom³⁹¹Ps. 72:2.”. They said, what caused us all this bloodshed? They said, because we did not perform kindness for that just man. They went and organized a eulogy and performed kindness for that just man. The verse considers it as if he died and was buried there where they performed kindness for that just man.

He who dwells outside the Land or dwells in a hostelry in the Land of Israel for thirty days need not put up a mezuzzah²⁰³Babli Menaḥot 44a.. Longer than that he has to put up a mezuzzah. He who dwells in a rural tower for thirty days has to put up a mezuzzah. He who rents a house from a Jew has to put up a mezuzzah²⁰⁴The renter is responsible to supply the mezuzzah. Babli Pesaḥim 4a, Bava meṣia` 102a.. He who rents a house from a Gentile has to put up a mezuzzah, and when he leaves he removes it, but from a Jew it is forbidden to act in this way. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Josias, because of what happened. It happened that a person removed and was burying his children. He who dwells dwells in a hostelry outside the Land of Israel for thirty days need not put up a mezuzzah. If he put up, he may not remove it. Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Josias, because of what happened. It happened that a person removed and was burying his children.

May one apply a trick¹⁹⁶It is not clear what kind of trick is intended. From the context, it seems that the reference is to the last clause in the Mishnah, that in case of ḥalîṣah the one who cannot marry a Cohen should perform ḥalîṣah. If the older brother insists on having ḥalîṣah with the other widow, may one intervene to direct another brother to consent to the more desirable ḥalîṣah?? Did Rebbi Ṭarphon, the father of all of Israel, not apply a trick? He gave qiddushin to 300 women in times of famine to let them eat heave¹⁹⁷This must have been during the time of the Temple since later generations forbade any non-priestly woman marrying a Cohen to eat sacred food before the actual marriage (Mishnah Ketubot 5:3) and R. Ṭarphon formally acquired all 300 women but married none of them.! There, every one of them was able to eat heave. But here, is each one able to perform levirate? Rebbi Yudan the son of Rebbi Ismael: One deals with him is such a way¹⁹⁷This must have been during the time of the Temple since later generations forbade any non-priestly woman marrying a Cohen to eat sacred food before the actual marriage (Mishnah Ketubot 5:3) and R. Ṭarphon formally acquired all 300 women but married none of them..

HALAKHAH: “If libation wine fell into a cistern,” etc. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of ben Bathyra: If libation wine fell into a cistern, all of it shall be sold to a Gentile except for the value of libation wine¹⁷⁸The lenient ruling of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel is a traditional Babylonian one.. Rebbi Samuel bar Nathan in the name of Rebbi Ḥama: practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel¹⁷⁹In the Babli, 74a, this is a ruling of the prestigious Rav Naḥman. Here it is quoted in the name of obscure authorities because it is not unquestionable.. Rebbi Yasa said, one of the rabbis came out from the house of assembly and said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. One said, practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, and one said, practice does not follow Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, but Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel agrees that as wine for cooking it is forbidden¹⁸⁰As explained in Note 177, even for Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel libation wine remains forbidden even in the most minute amount; it is only that the mixture does not entirely become forbidden for all usufruct.. Rebbi Bun in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel if it was an amphora among amphoras that all of it shall be sold to a Gentile except for the value of libation wine¹⁸¹This is Rav’s interpretation of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel’s ruling in the Babli 74a. If an amphora in a storage facility with at least two other amphoras was contaminated with libation wine and it can no longer be identified, all amphoras can be sold to Gentiles since for each single one the probability that it was the forbidden one is less than 50% which makes the sale acceptable by biblical standards.. Rebbi Ze`ira said before Rebbi Immi: Before this was said did we not know that it was so<sup>182</sup>That even a person rejecting the opinion of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel could agrees with the ruling.? Was it said that the Sages agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, or perhaps was only said that Rabban Gamliel agrees with the Sages? Rebbi Yudan said, Rebbi Ze`ira knew that it was so, but he is like a person who hears something and objects to it¹⁸³He does not question that practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel in all cases, also of a single cistern or a single amphora, following Samuel in the Babli 74a. He only makes it clear that this is a practical ruling without theoretical underpinning..