Avodah Zarah 057

1:
As we explained when we began our study of this chapter, the topic that will occupy us to the end of the chapter is Yeyn Nesekh. Although we explained this Hebrew term in AZ 024 it will be helpful and convenient if we offer an explanation here as well.

2:
The Torah [Deuteronomy 32:37-38] rhetorically asks where are the gods of the pagans, so lavishly worshipped in times of plenty, when the situation changes and help is desperately needed.

What interests us here in this passage is the reference to 'libation wine' offered to the pagan gods. Rambam, in his Book of the Commandments [Negative Commandment #194] says that this verse is the origin of the prohibition of Yeyn Nesekh, which means 'libation wine'..

3:
Wine which has been handled by a non-Jew is forbidden to be used by a Jew. Such wine is termed in Hebrew yeyn nesekh [libation wine] or stam yeynam [simply non-Jewish wine]. The term originally referred to wine that served for libations in non-Jewish religious ceremonies; but later it came to include all wines that had passed through non-Jewish hands. The Gemara [AZ 31a] specifically prohibits non-Jewish wine. While other commodities gradually disappeared from the original list of prohibited items the prohibition of non-Jewish wine was never abrogated and never fell into desuetude.

4:
The Gemara [AZ 30b] distinguishes between three categories of forbidden non-Jewish wine:

• Yeyn nesekh, which is wine that had actually be used in a pagan libation;
• Stam yeynam, which is non-Jewish wine and it is not known whether if was used for religious purposes or not;
• Unsealed Jewish wine which had been left with a non-Jew for safe-keeping.

5:
Gradually, over the centuries, the attitude towards non-Jewish wine was relaxed, though never abandoned. But in Mishnaic and Talmudic times it was rigorously imposed.

6:
The question raised in our present mishnah is at what stage in the manufacture of wine can it become yeyn nesekh? Is the wine produced by them prohibited if a non-Jew handled the grapes? May a non-Jew tread the grapes? Our mishnah gives a very specific answer.

7:
In order to understand our present mishnah we must understand the process of making wine in ancient times. The harvested grapes were dumped into the winepress. This was a cemented cistern or pit, usually dug out of ground rock for the purpose. Once in the winepress the grapes were there trodden to extract their juice. Every now and then someone would move some of the trodden grapes onto a pile of mashed grapes situated at the far end of the winepress. From there a conduit led to a second cistern called the vat. The vat was always lower than the winepress so that the juice oozing from the trodden grapes in the pile could run down to be collected in the vat.

In the picture (to the left) of an ancient winepress we can see the winepress itself, where the grapes were trodden, in the upper part of the picture, to the right; we can also see a conduit leading from the winepress to the vat, which is the pit, lower down, on the left of the picture.

8:
Our mishnah teaches that only when the juice reaches the vat can it become 'yeyn nesekh'. A non-Jew may pick the grapes, may tread the grapes and may even move the trodden mass onto the pile. But once the juice has reached the vat it becomes prohibited to Jews if a non-Jew just so much as touches it. Thus, our mishnah clarifies what might otherwise be seen as a anomalous situation: it is possible for grapes in the winepress to be 'kosher' even though handles by a non-Jew while the juice in the vat that those grapes produced is not kosher if that same non-Jew handles it in any way.

In AZ 054 we learned how a non-Jew may or may not cancel the sanctity of an idol. (If the idol ceases to have any religious significance it is just a statue.) In my explanation I wrote: The Gemara [AZ 53a] clarifies that the actual bone of contention is concerning a situation in which an idolator sells his idol to a smelter.

My colleague, Marty Berman, writes:

I think that it is important to acknowledge that the Talmud's interpretation of the dispute between Rabbi and the sages is based upon the Talmudic prejudice/presumption that the disagreement is over the smallest difference. By reading it that we are talking about selling an idol to be melted down it means that Rabbi mostly agrees with the sages and not that he holds anytime the idol is sold. While the Talmud's introduction of the smelter may be what Rabbi had in mind, I believe that the straight forward meaning is probably more accurate.

I comment:

It is certainly true that when the sages of the Gemara were faced with two differing opinions received from the sages of the Mishnah, more often than not rather than say that one was correct and the other in error they would try to discover a situation that supports one of the opinions while a different situation supports the other opinion. I must agree with Marty that more often than not it seems to us that the differences are hardly significant enough – or reasonable enough – to justify for us the explanation of the difference of opinion.