ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Avodah Zarah 33
(a) The Beraisa permits new skin flasks of Nochrim that have not been
overlaid with pitch - because they have not yet had a chance to absorb the
wine that they contain.
(b) This concession - does not extend to earthenware jars, which begin to
(c) The Beraisa - forbids however, old flasks or new ones that have been
overlaid with pitch.
(a) The Beraisa discusses a case where a Nochri overlaid leather flasks with
pitch and immediately poured in the wine - because wine that is poured into
the flask whilst the pitch is still hot, improves the wine which adopts the
sharp taste of the pitch.
(b) The Tana permits the wine - provided a Yisrael oversees the process.
(c) We object to this leniency however - but it does not seem to make sense
to permit wine that the Nochri pours in himself, even if a Yisrael oversees
(d) Rav Papa therefore amends the Beraisa to read - that it is the Yisrael
who pours in the wine after the Nochri has poured the pitch.
(a) Even though it is the Yisrael who pours in the wine, one needs a second
Yisrael to oversee the procedure - because otherwise we are afraid that the
Nochri will take advantage of the fact that the Yisrael is busy pouring out
the wine, and render the wine Yayin Nesech.
(b) Rav Z'vid re-establishes the Beraisa as it was presented, and
nevertheless, the Tana permits the wine on the basis of the Yisrael who is
overseeing - because the wine that becomes absorbed in the cask, goes
completely to waste (like pouring water into mud [see Ritva]).
(c) Rav Papi extrapolates from Rav Z'vid's ruling - that if a Nochri pours
wine into a vessel containing salt, the salt is permitted (because it has
gone completely to waste).
(d) Rav Ashi refutes Rav Papi's proof however - on the grounds that (unlike
the case of the pitch, where the wine disappears and dries up) the wine in
the salt remains intact, seeing as a. it never dries up, and b. it gives
taste to the salt.
(a) bar Adi was a Nochri ...
(b) ... who forced Rebbi Yitzchak bar Yosef to give him his leather flasks,
which he filled with wine, and later returned.
(c) Rebbi Yirmiyah quoting Rebbi Ami ruled - that Rebbi Yitzchak bar Yosef
would have to fill the flasks with water for three days (in order to be
permitted to use the flasks), and pour the water out (a process known as
(d) Rava added - that he had to change the water after each twenty-four hour
(a) When Ravin arrived from Eretz Yisrael, he quoted Resh Lakish - who
extended this ruling even to a case where the flask belonged to the Nochri
to begin with (even though it would have absorbed far more wine).
(b) Rav Acha b'rei de'Rava thought that perhaps the lenient ruling is
restricted to skin flasks, but not to earthenware casks - because
earthenware tends to absorb a lot and do not exude all that they absorb.
(c) Rav Ashi told him - that earthenware casks in this regard, have the same
Din as skin flasks.
(a) The basic Halachah of 'Shtelling' earthenware wine-jars of Nochrim in
water is taught in a Beraisa. The Tana dispenses with the need for
Shtelling, permitting the jars to be used immediately - if one uses them for
fish-juice or fish-hash (whose sharpness quickly dispel any wine that the
jars have absorbed.
(b) We ask whether this applies even Lechatchilah, or only Bedi'eved
(permitting the fish juice ... that he already poured into the cask. Rav
Z'vid bar Oshaya answers with a Beraisa - which specifically permits it even
(a) When Rebbi Yehudah Nesi'ah asked Rebbi Ami whether returning the
wine-casks to the furnace would suffice to permit them, he replied - that if
fish-juice burned up the wine, then how much more so, the heat of a furnace.
(b) Rebbi Yochanan (according to one version, quoted by Rebbi Asi) concurs
with this ruling.
(c) In fact, he permits the jars as soon as the pitch falls off from the
heat. Rav Ashi maintains - that what Rebbi Yochanan means is that it is
sufficient for it to come loose.
(d) We ask what the Din will be if one heats the jars by placing boiling hot
rods inside them, until the pitch falls off. This might not be as good as
returning them to the furnace - because seeing as the pitch is inside the
jars together with the rods, it will require a lesser temperature to remove
it, than would have been required had one returned them to the furnace,
where the heat would have had to loosen the pitch from the outside of the
(a) Rav Acha and Ravina argue over the previous case. The Halachah is -Asur.
(b) We learn from here - that one cannot Kasher barrels or jars that were
used for storing wine, by pouring boiling water into them (since hot water
is certainly no better than fire).
(c) Rav Nachman and Rav Yehudah forbid using the barrels even for beer,
unless they have been Kashered. Nevertheless, Ravina permitted Rav Chiya
b'rei de'Rav Yitzchak to use them for beer, like the opinion of Rava. The
latter (in error) subsequently - used them for storing wine.
(d) Why did Ravina not decree against using the jars for beer - because, he
claimed, that was a chance error that would not recur.
(a) When Rav Yitzchak bar Bisna filled jars made of earthenware and animal
dung that had been used with Yayin Nesech, and placed them in the sun - they
(b) Rebbi Aba commented - that Rav Yitzchak had lost his jars quite
unnecessarily, since it was not necessary to place in the sun.
(c) Rebbi Yossi bar Avin translated 'K'lei Neser' as receptacles made of
alum. Rebbi Yusna stated - that they cannot be Kashered.
(a) The men of Parzak Rufila took by force earthenware casks that were not
used for storage from Pumbedisa, and later returned them. 'Rufila' means -
second to the king (viceroy).
(b) Rav Yehudah ruled - that, since these vessels were not used for storage,
they only needed to be rinsed with cold water.
(c) Rav Avira - issued the identical ruling with regard to those barrels of
red clay that one obtained from Nochrim, (even assuming that they *were*
used for storage) ...
(d) ... as did Rav Papi regarding 'Pasvasa de'Bei Michsi' - earthenware
vessels that come from an area where the clay is hard (and which do
therefore not absorb much).
(a) Rav Asi requires earthenware cups to be Kashered, Rav Ashi does not.
They argue in a case where a Yisrael drank from the cup for the first time,
and it is from the second time and onwards that the Nochri drank from it;
but if the latter were to drink from it the first time, then even Rav Ashi
would agree with Rav Asi - because since the cup is soft (presumably we mean
that it is made from thin clay) it absorbs easily.
(b) The second Lashon, which is Halachah, takes a more stringent line -
requiring Kashering even after the second time according to both opinions.
(c) Rav Z'vid permits a black or white earthenware vessel covered with lead
(see also Tosfos DH 'Kunya') - but not a green one, which absorbs more.
(d) He will require even a black or white earthenware vessel which are
covered with lead to be Kashered - in the event that they have cracks.
(a) Mereimar is more lenient than Rav Z'vid - permitting even a green
earthenware vessel without Kashering it.
(b) They asked Mereimar about having to Kasher these same vessels with
regard to Pesach. The She'eilah does not pertain - to green vessels (even if
they are smooth) because the alum that they contain, absorbs a lot and is
therefore never subject to Kashering, as we learned earlier.
(c) Mereimar replied - that he had seen them exuding, in which case they
need to be Kashered.
(d) Mereimar will reconcile his stringent ruling by Chametz with his lenient
ruling by Yayin Nesech - by establishing the former by vessels that are used
with hot, and the latter, by vessels that are used with cold.
(e) He did not answer that, whereas Chametz on Pesach is d'Oraysa, S'tam
Yeinam is only de'Rabbanan - because of the principle 'Kol de'Tikun, Ke'ein
d'Oraysa Tikun' (the specification of the Rabbanan's Takanos are similar to
to the Torah law). Consequently, since the Chachamim forbade Yayin Nesech,
they would have also given it the same specifications as if it was d'Oraysa.