## Avodah Zarah Daf 71b

###### Avodah Zarah 71b:1
[Avodah Zarah 71b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/71b:1)

מִדְּמַשְׁכֵהּ גּוֹי קַנְיֵיהּ, יֵין נֶסֶךְ לָא הָוֵי עַד דְּנָגַע בֵּיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**from** the moment **that he pulled it,** the **gentile acquired it,** whereas **it did not become wine** used for **a libation until he touched it.** Therefore, the seller can receive payment for the wine he sold, because at the time of the acquisition the wine was permitted.


###### Avodah Zarah 71b:2
[Avodah Zarah 71b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/71b:2)

אִי דְּקָא כָיֵיל וְרָמֵי לְמָנָא דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, הָכִי נָמֵי. לָא צְרִיכָא דְּקָא כָיֵיל וְרָמֵי לְמָנָא דְּגוֹי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this proof: **If** it is a case **where** the seller **measures** the wine **and pours** it **into the vessel of a Jew,** it is **indeed** permitted to do so without receiving payment first. Rav’s ruling **is not necessary** except in a case **where he measures** the wine **and pours** it **into the vessel of** the **gentile,** which contains wine used for a libation, and the wine is rendered forbidden upon contact with the vessel even before the gentile acquires it by pulling it.


###### Avodah Zarah 71b:3
[Avodah Zarah 71b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/71b:3)

סוֹף סוֹף, כִּי מְטָא לְאַוֵּירָא דְּמָנָא קַנְיֵיהּ, יֵין נֶסֶךְ לָא הָוֵי עַד דְּמָטֵי לְאַרְעִיתֵיהּ דְּמָנָא, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ נִצּוֹק חִבּוּר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises an objection: **Ultimately,** even in this case, **when** the wine **reaches the** interior **airspace of the** gentile’s **vessel, he acquires it,** as this too is a mode of acquisition. And **it does not become wine** used for **a libation until it reaches the bottom of the vessel,** making contact with it, so the acquisition occurs before the wine becomes forbidden. Can one **conclude from** this that in the opinion of Rav **a stream** of liquid serves as **a connection** between two bodies of liquid? If so, when the Jew pours the wine into the gentile’s vessel, the flow of wine that is in contact with the forbidden wine at the bottom of the vessel would render all the wine being poured into the vessel forbidden.


###### Avodah Zarah 71b:4
[Avodah Zarah 71b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/71b:4)

לָא, אִי דְּנָקֵיט לֵיהּ גּוֹי לִכְלִי בִּידֵיהּ — הָכִי נָמֵי; לָא צְרִיכָא דְּמַנַּח אַאַרְעָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this conclusion: **No,** a stream of liquid does not serve as a connection, and therefore **if** the **gentile is holding the vessel in his hand,** the gentile **indeed** acquires the wine before it becomes forbidden, and therefore the money paid for it is permitted. Rav’s ruling **is not necessary** unless the gentile’s vessel **is set on the ground,** so that there is no act of acquisition before the wine becomes forbidden.


###### Avodah Zarah 71b:5
[Avodah Zarah 71b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/71b:5)

וְתִיקְּנֵי לֵיהּ כִּלְיוֹ! שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ: כִּלְיוֹ שֶׁל לוֹקֵחַ בִּרְשׁוּת מוֹכֵר — לֹא קָנָה לוֹקֵחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But let the vessels of** the gentile **acquire** the wine from the moment it enters the interior airspace. Can one **conclude from** this that if the **buyer’s vessels** are **in the domain of the seller, the buyer does not acquire** the merchandise once it is placed in his vessels? This is an issue that is subject to a dispute between the Sages, which remains unresolved.


###### Avodah Zarah 71b:6
[Avodah Zarah 71b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/71b:6)

לָא, לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ: קָנָה לוֹקֵחַ, וְהָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? כְּגוֹן דְּאִיכָּא עַכֶּבֶת יַיִן אַפּוּמַּיהּ דְּכוּזַנְתָּא, דְּקַמָּא קַמָּא אִינְּסֵיךְ לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **No, actually, I** could **say to you** that the **buyer acquires** the merchandise in such a case. **But here,** where the wine is rendered forbidden before being acquired by the gentile, **we are dealing with** a case **where there is a remnant of wine** remaining **on the mouth of the** gentile’s **jug [*kuzanta*],** which renders the wine poured into the jug forbidden, **as each** bit of wine **becomes libation** wine when it comes into contact with the remnant of wine on the mouth as it is poured into the jug. This is why Rav told the wine shopkeepers to take the money before measuring the wine into the gentile’s vessel.


###### Avodah Zarah 71b:7
[Avodah Zarah 71b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/71b:7)

וּכְמַאן? דְּלָא כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, דְּאִי רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, הָאָמַר: יִמָּכֵר כּוּלּוֹ לְגוֹיִם חוּץ מִדְּמֵי יֵין נֶסֶךְ שֶׁבּוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises an objection: **And in accordance with whose** opinion does Rav say this? It is **not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel; as, if** it were in accordance with the opinion of **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, doesn’t he say** that libation wine that became mixed with other wine **may all be sold to gentiles** for the monetary value of the entire mixture **except for the value of the wine** used for **a libation that is in** the mixture? Accordingly, it is permitted to accept payment for wine that was poured into a gentile’s vessel, and the *halakha* is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.


###### Avodah Zarah 71b:8
[Avodah Zarah 71b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/71b:8)

מִידֵּי הוּא טַעְמָא, אֶלָּא לְרַב, הָאָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל — חָבִית בְּחָבִית, אֲבָל לֹא יַיִן בְּיַיִן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **The explanation** of **this** ruling can be **only according to** the opinion of **Rav,** who issued the ruling. And **doesn’t Rav say** that the ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel** only in the case of **a barrel** of permitted wine that became intermingled **with** another **barrel** of libation wine, **but not** in the case of **wine** that became mixed **with** other **wine** in the same barrel? Therefore, explaining Rav’s statement as contradicting the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is not problematic; consequently, it cannot be proven from his statement that a gentile does not acquire an item by pulling it.


###### Avodah Zarah 71b:9
[Avodah Zarah 71b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/71b:9)

מֵיתִיבִי: הַלּוֹקֵחַ גְּרוּטָאוֹת מִן הַגּוֹיִם וּמָצָא בָּהֶן עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן מָעוֹת מָשַׁךְ — יַחֲזִיר, אִם מִשֶּׁנָּתַן מָעוֹת מָשַׁךְ — יוֹלִיךְ לְיָם הַמֶּלַח. אִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ מְשִׁיכָה בְּגוֹי קוֹנָה, אַמַּאי יַחְזִיר? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מִשּׁוּם דְּמִיחֲזֵי כִּי מִקָּח טָעוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises** another **objection** to the statement of Ameimar that a gentile can acquire an object by pulling it. It is taught in a *baraita*: With regard to **one who buys broken vessels** made of gold or silver **from the gentiles and finds among them** an object of **idol worship, if he pulled** the object of idol worship, thereby performing an act of acquisition, **before he gave** the **money** to the gentile, **he may return** the object of idol worship to the gentile. But **if he pulled** it **after he gave** the **money** to the gentile, he may not return it. Since the idol’s status was not revoked, he must **take** it and cast it **into the Dead Sea.** In that case, **if it enters your mind** that **pulling** an object **acquires** it **in** a transaction with **a gentile,** as Ameimar maintains, then **why may he return** the object once he has pulled it, since it is his? **Abaye said:** He may return it **because it appears to be a mistaken transaction,** since he clearly did not intend to purchase an object of idol worship.


###### Avodah Zarah 71b:10
[Avodah Zarah 71b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/71b:10)

אָמַר רָבָא: רֵישָׁא מִקָּח טָעוּת, סֵיפָא לָאו מִקָּח טָעוּת? אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: רֵישָׁא וְסֵיפָא מִקָּח טָעוּת, וְרֵישָׁא דְּלָא יָהֵיב זוּזֵי — לָא מִיתְחֲזֵי כַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה בְּיַד יִשְׂרָאֵל, סֵיפָא דְּיָהֵיב זוּזֵי — מִיתְחֲזֵי כַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה בְּיַד יִשְׂרָאֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said:** Then why, in the second instance, where he paid the money, may he not return it? Is the purchase in **the first clause a mistaken transaction** but the purchase in **the latter clause not a mistaken transaction? Rather, Rava said:** The purchase in **the first clause and** the purchase in **the latter clause** are both **a mistaken transaction, but** in the case presented in **the first clause, where he did not pay him the dinars, it does not appear as** though there is an object of **idol worship in the possession of a Jew,** and so he may return it. By contrast, in **the latter clause, where he did pay him the dinars, it appears as** though there is an object of **idol worship in the possession of a Jew,** and therefore he must cast away the object rather than return it.


###### Avodah Zarah 71b:11
[Avodah Zarah 71b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/71b:11)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ מָר קַשִּׁישָׁא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: תָּא שְׁמַע, הַמּוֹכֵר יֵינוֹ לְנׇכְרִי, פָּסַק עַד שֶׁלֹּא מָדַד — דָּמָיו מוּתָּרִים. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ מְשִׁיכָה בְּגוֹי אֵינָהּ קוֹנָה, אַמַּאי דָּמָיו מוּתָּרִין? הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — דְּאַקְדֵּים לֵיהּ דִּינָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara cites a claim against Rav Ashi’s opinion that a gentile cannot acquire an item by pulling it: **Mar Kashisha, son of Rav Ḥisda, said to Rav Ashi: Come** and **hear** an objection to your opinion from the mishna: In the case of a Jew **who sells his wine to a gentile,** if **he fixed** a price **before he measured** the wine into the gentile’s vessel, deriving benefit from **the money** paid **for** the wine is **permitted,** as the wine was acquired by the gentile before he touched it. **And if you say** that **pulling** an item **does not acquire** it **in** a transaction involving **a gentile, why is the money** paid **for it permitted?** Rav Ashi replied: **Here we are dealing with** a case **where** the gentile **paid him a dinar in advance,** before the measuring, thereby acquiring the wine with money.


###### Avodah Zarah 71b:12
[Avodah Zarah 71b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/71b:12)

אִי הָכִי, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: מָדַד עַד שֶׁלֹּא פָּסַק — דָּמָיו אֲסוּרִין, וְאִי דְּקָדֵים לֵיהּ דִּינָר, אַמַּאי דָּמָיו אֲסוּרִין?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
One of the Sages raised an objection: **If that is so, say the last clause:** But if the Jew **measured** the wine into the gentile’s vessel, thereby rendering it forbidden, **before he fixed** a price, **the money** paid **for** the wine is **forbidden. And if he paid him a dinar in advance, why** should **the money** paid **for it** be **forbidden?**


###### Avodah Zarah 71b:13
[Avodah Zarah 71b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/71b:13)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וּלְדִידָךְ דְּאָמְרַתְּ מְשִׁיכָה בְּגוֹי קוֹנָה, אַמַּאי רֵישָׁא דָּמָיו מוּתָּרִין, וְסֵיפָא דָּמָיו אֲסוּרִין?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Ashi **said to him: And according to you, as you say** that **pulling acquires** items **in** a transaction involving **a gentile, why** in **the first clause** is **the money** paid **for it permitted, and** in **the latter clause the money** paid **for it** is **forbidden?**


###### Avodah Zarah 71b:14
[Avodah Zarah 71b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/71b:14)

אֶלָּא מַאי אִית לָךְ לְמֵימַר? פָּסַק — סָמְכָא דַּעְתֵּיהּ; לֹא פָּסַק — לָא סָמְכָא דַּעְתֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, what have you to say** to explain the distinction between the two cases? You say that when the Jew **fixed** a price, the gentile consequently **relied** on him that the sale would not be canceled, and so the sale was concluded by the pulling. But in a case where **he did not fix** a price, the gentile **did not rely** on him that the sale would not be canceled, and therefore the sale was not concluded.


###### Avodah Zarah 71b:15
[Avodah Zarah 71b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/71b:15)

לְדִידִי נָמֵי, אַף עַל גַּב דִּקְדֵים לֵיהּ דִּינָר — פָּסַק, סָמְכָא דַּעְתֵּיהּ; לֹא פָּסַק, לָא סָמְכָא דַּעְתֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**According to my** opinion **as well, even though** the gentile **gave him a dinar in advance,** if **he fixed** a price, the gentile **relied** on him that the sale would not be canceled, and if **he did not fix** a price, the gentile **did not rely** on him that the sale would not be canceled.


###### Avodah Zarah 71b:16
[Avodah Zarah 71b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/71b:16)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בֶּן נֹחַ נֶהֱרָג עַל פָּחוֹת מִשָּׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה, וְלֹא נִיתָּן לְהִישָּׁבוֹן, וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ מְשִׁיכָה בְּגוֹי אֵינָהּ קוֹנָה, אַמַּאי נֶהֱרָג?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Come** and **hear** another proof against your opinion, **as Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says: A descendant of Noah,** i.e., a gentile, **is executed** by the court **for** theft of even **less than the value of one *peruta*; but** if he stole less than the value of one *peruta* from a Jew, **it is not subject to restitution,** i.e., he is not obligated to return it, as the Jew presumably waived the debt. **And if you say** that **pulling** an item **does not acquire** it **in** a transaction involving **a gentile, why** should **he** be **executed?** He did not commit a legally significant act by stealing the item, as it remains in the possession of the owner.


###### Avodah Zarah 71b:17
[Avodah Zarah 71b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Avodah%20Zarah/r/71b:17)

מִשּׁוּם דְּצַעֲרֵיהּ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: He is executed **because he caused a Jew distress** by stealing the item, even though by the *halakhot* of acquisition the thief did not acquire it.