The Gemara has been examining what sorts of actions on the part of a non-Jew can render wine forbidden, and whether forbidden means forbidden to consume or even to benefit from (i.e. sell it). The mishnah on today’s daf presents several of these scenarios:
A gentile who was found standing next to the wine vat — if there is a loan (by the owner of the wine vat to the gentile), the wine is prohibited. But if there is no loan, the wine is permitted.
If a gentile fell into the vat and emerged, or if he measured (the wine) with a pole, or if he cast a hornet (out of the wine) by means of a pole, or where the gentile was removing the foam on the top of a fermenting barrel of wine — with regard to all these cases there was such an incident. And the sages said that the wine may be sold (to gentiles). And Rabbi Shimon deems it permitted (even for drinking). If a gentile took a barrel and threw it, in his anger, into the vat, this was an incident and the sages deemed the wine fit (for drinking).
The first scenario is a case of incomplete information. We know the non-Jew is adjacent to the wine vat, but not whether they touched it. The mishnah suggests that the question of whether the Jewish owner of the vat is indebted to the non-Jew can help fill in the gaps. Rashi explains that if the Jewish owner of the wine vet owes a debt to the non-Jew, we can assume the non-Jew would have no fear of touching the wine, as the debtor’s property is liened to them. Therefore, we assume they likely touched the wine and it’s prohibited. In the absence of such a debt, we don’t default to an assumption that a non-Jew would have touched another person’s wine and taken from or damaged their property.
Next we find a series of scenarios in which either the non-Jew touched the wine directly but clearly didn’t intend to, touched the wine indirectly, or touched the wine directly and purposefully but clearly not with the intent of libation. In all these cases, the rabbis rule that the wine cannot be drunk, but there’s no prohibition on benefit. Rabbi Shimon believes that since these cases very clearly do not involve any purposeful touching that could be construed as libation, the wine should be permitted even for consumption. In the final scenario, where the non-Jew only threw an object at the wine, the rabbis concede that the wine in the vat is still permitted even for consumption.
We see several factors at play in dissecting these scenarios:
- Did the non-Jew touch the wine directly, or with another object? And if it was with another object, were they in contact with the object at the time it came in contact with the wine?
- Did they touch the wine intentionally?
- Did they touch it in a manner that’s clearly for a non-libation purpose?
- In the absence of full information, when can we assume they touched it?
The Gemara then provides a somewhat absurd elaboration on the law that it’s permitted to benefit from wine in a case where a gentile fell into the vat and emerged.
Rav Pappa says: The sages taught this only in a case where the gentile emerged dead. But if he emerged alive, it’s prohibited. What is the reason? Rav Pappa said: Since (the gentile was rescued from death), he considers that day like their festival day.
Even the seemingly straightforward scenario of a person who fell into a vat of wine — clearly a case of unintentional contact — becomes functionally written out of existence by Rav Pappa, who suggests that while the initial contact may have been unintentional, if the non-Jew survives the fall, they’ll be so grateful they will libate in gratitude. This is in line with the rabbis’ portrayal of non-Jews as serial libaters who will make an offering to their gods upon any and all occasions.
Read all of Avodah Zarah 60 on Sefaria.
This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on August 17, 2025. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.
With your help, My Jewish Learning can provide endless opportunities for learning, connection and discovery.
